Is this offensive/racist? A course of study

[ed]

It is increasingly important for all of us to recognize offensive and/or racist material with nothing more than a glance.

This thread will help us become better people.

Post your examples and explain why they are/are not racist.

If you are a member of the patriarchy, anything you post is, by definition, racist and offensive so please simply engage in self criticism.

I will begin.

Spoiler:

Not offensive. In fact, a paean to blackness.
Detailed exegesis: Armed African Americans are desirable and violence to address grievances against the patriarchy are entirely justified. In addition, dead jews are acceptable in our Brave New World (BNW) under any circumstances.

[ed]

Good effort, Abdul. But a fail. In the present case, "Ol Black" is an affermative cry, linked as it is to the redress of grievances.

I suggest you retire to a safe space and consider my words and then, when you have folded your tent, come back and try again.

[ed]

That was sung by Clarence T. Gitworth, a noted BLACK bluesman. You clearly cannot tell authentic blackness from absurd caricature.

Your lack of racial sensitivity is really appalling. I think that you are going to have to go to the Evergreen Reeducation Camp.

[ed]

250px-UpgradedStickFarket.png

Well? Want to try again Abdul?

Spoiler:

Racist and offensive.

1. A club that was used by Lester Maddox to whup black ass
2. It symbolizes the Clubs that white patriarchs refused to let brothers enter except as servants
3. It is a piece of a hanging tree that symbolizes lynching
Pieces of wood in any form should be outlawed.

[sparks]

2) OK I clicked it.

Got to 0:22 (really about 0:02 after the set up noise) before making a judgement.

Too painfully super-lame-o to go any farther.

Of course it's racist. And painfully painfully super-lame-o.
I haven't heard a worse faux-ghetto accent since that incident with Hillary.

It would be an offense even if not racist.

No I don't have to listen to more than the first line.
No it doesn't get better. I just know this.

Agreed!

If one produces something of this caliber, the only way to make it fly is to do it really well, and this thing is anything but well done.

[Pyrrho]

Way back when, I was at a meeting. Two very overweight people were joking around with each other about their weights. Another person, who wasn't overweight, came over and started to make similar wisecracks about their weights. They asked him to stop because they found it to be offensive. He asked "Why? You've been saying the same thing!" Answer? "Because we have experienced this condition and you haven't. You don't get to make jokes at our expense. We do."

For similar reasons, that is why white people don't get to joke about the black experience.

[sparks]

You can rag on your own, but never the other guys.

But that is nonsense.

Anyone can make a joke about anyone else, it's just a fucking joke and to hell with those who have thin skin. They can run to WC's Mommy for comfort.

[xouper]

Meritocracy is racist, says professor.

http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/ ... ew/324/222

Not it's not, says the dictionary. In fact it is the opposite of racist.

She also says "colorblindness" is racist. :shock:

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength."

The book 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.

[Pyrrho]

Lynchings and many decades of oppression may have tended to affect the situation.

I think it's ridiculous when white people can't understand why it's unacceptable for them to use certain words when referring to black people.

I'm not going to tell black people how they should feel about it.

[xouper]

Lynchings and many decades of oppression may have tended to affect the situation.

I think it's ridiculous when white people can't understand why it's unacceptable for them to use certain words when referring to black people.

I'm not going to tell black people how they should feel about it.

I agree.

I have actively made those same points in face-to-face conversations with certain people who insist they should be able to use whatever labels they like with impunity.

Sidebar: Given that your post immediately follows mine, would you please clarify whether your observations were in response to my post (which does not in any way discuss words that refer to black people, or any other race), or whether you were responding to something else?

[ed]

Should such words have legal penalties associated with them?

I have spent my life being taught that freedom of expression was a basic human right. And that meritocracies were good and that one should be colorblind. Those things are as much my experience as oppression etc is part of a black persons life. (I take issue with that contention btw). But that being the case, my offense at having some cloistered academic disagree to my face is just as real and palpable as any other "offended" person's.

But speech is sacred and I suck it up and fuck anyone who can't.

[Pyrrho]

Lynchings and many decades of oppression may have tended to affect the situation.

I think it's ridiculous when white people can't understand why it's unacceptable for them to use certain words when referring to black people.

I'm not going to tell black people how they should feel about it.

I agree.

I have actively made those same points in face-to-face conversations with certain people who insist they should be able to use whatever labels they like with impunity.

Sidebar: Given that your post immediately follows mine, would you please clarify whether your observations were in response to my post (which does not in any way discuss words that refer to black people, or any other race), or whether you were responding to something else?

I was responding in general, not specifically to your post, which raises valid questions relating to freedom of speech.

[Pyrrho]

Should such words have legal penalties associated with them?

I have spent my life being taught that freedom of expression was a basic human right. And that meritocracies were good and that one should be colorblind. Those things are as much my experience as oppression etc is part of a black persons life. (I take issue with that contention btw). But that being the case, my offense at having some cloistered academic disagree to my face is just as real and palpable as any other "offended" person's.

But speech is sacred and I suck it up and fuck anyone who can't.

No, such words should not have legal penalties associated with them.

To rephrase a bit: I think that white people are being a bit ridiculous if they are dismayed by the reaction they get when they use certain words when referring to black people. Any expectation of social consequence-free use of language that derives from a history of abusive use against other people is immature and unrealistic. White people should not expect that they should be able to speak and/or behave in ways that have racist meanings without any objections from the target of that racism, and vice-versa. Nor should they expect to be able to use such words without social consequence even if black people use them to address each other. Their experience and history has been rather dismal in this country. Thus, my previous example of the people who could joke at each other, but did not like the wisecracks from the third guy who did not have their same life experience.

And no, I do not expect to receive a pony. Just my opinion, which is worth approximately $0.02, American.

[xouper]

To rephrase a bit: I think that white people are being a bit ridiculous if they are dismayed by the reaction they get when they use certain words when referring to black people. Any expectation of social consequence-free use of language that derives from a history of abusive use against other people is immature and unrealistic. White people should not expect that they should be able to speak and/or behave in ways that have racist meanings without any objections from the target of that racism, and vice-versa.

That's pretty much how I interpreted your original comment. So it's good to get confirmation I'm not a total dumbass. :notsure:

Counter example:

Sidebar: Given that your post immediately follows mine, would you please clarify whether your observations were in response to my post (which does not in any way discuss words that refer to black people, or any other race), or whether you were responding to something else?

I was responding in general, not specifically to your post, which raises valid questions relating to freedom of speech.

I don't know where you are going with your comment about freedom of speech.
In other words, I still have an occasional dumbass moment. :shock:

The point of my post was in keeping with the general theme of the opening post, by giving an example of something that is clearly not racist, but that was absurdly characterized as racist, and free speech does not seem relevant to that point. That does not mean your point is not valid, it merely means, I don't what your point is. :oops:

[ed]

Should such words have legal penalties associated with them?

I have spent my life being taught that freedom of expression was a basic human right. And that meritocracies were good and that one should be colorblind. Those things are as much my experience as oppression etc is part of a black persons life. (I take issue with that contention btw). But that being the case, my offense at having some cloistered academic disagree to my face is just as real and palpable as any other "offended" person's.

But speech is sacred and I suck it up and fuck anyone who can't.

No, such words should not have legal penalties associated with them.

To rephrase a bit: I think that white people are being a bit ridiculous if they are dismayed by the reaction they get when they use certain words when referring to black people. Any expectation of social consequence-free use of language that derives from a history of abusive use against other people is immature and unrealistic. White people should not expect that they should be able to speak and/or behave in ways that have racist meanings without any objections from the target of that racism, and vice-versa. Nor should they expect to be able to use such words without social consequence even if black people use them to address each other. Their experience and history has been rather dismal in this country. Thus, my previous example of the people who could joke at each other, but did not like the wisecracks from the third guy who did not have their same life experience.

And no, I do not expect to receive a pony. Just my opinion, which is worth approximately $0.02, American.

Would you agree that I can feel every bit as offended by having my basic beliefs summarily dismissed as some other person responding to an assault on their personal experience?

[Pyrrho]

You are free to feel any way you like about anything.

[ed]

Excellent. Not all would agree with that.

[Doctor X]

You are free to feel any way you like about anything.

--J. "Be Seeing You!" D.

[Captain]

Ol' Number 6 got rabbit in his blood! Never did get his mind right. Some men you just can't reach.

[gnome]

Meritocracy is racist, says professor.

http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/ ... ew/324/222

Not it's not, says the dictionary. In fact it is the opposite of racist.

I don't think that's her claim--not opposing actual meritocracy, but pseudo-meritocracy that ignores an unlevel playing field and declares the outcome to be a result of merit when that is clearly not the only material factor.

[xouper]

Meritocracy is racist, says professor.

http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/ ... ew/324/222

Not it's not, says the dictionary. In fact it is the opposite of racist.

I don't think that's her claim--not opposing actual meritocracy, but pseudo-meritocracy that ignores an unlevel playing field and declares the outcome to be a result of merit when that is clearly not the only material factor.

As I understand it, the author does not make the distinction between pseudo and actual.

She considers all meritocracy to be inherently racist, without qualification.

She claims all meritocracy ignores the levelness of the playing field. Yeah, well so what, that's the whole point.

You don't give an NFL starting quarterback job to a lesser skilled person out of compassion for his unfortunate circumstances. If you want the best of the best, then all other factors are irrelevant. That's the exact opposite of racist.

Perhaps her complaint is that meritocracy is sometimes applied in situations where maybe it is not useful or appropriate. But still, that does not make meritocracy itself racist.

[gnome]

Meritocracy is racist, says professor.

http://ed-osprey.gsu.edu/ojs/index.php/ ... ew/324/222

Not it's not, says the dictionary. In fact it is the opposite of racist.

I don't think that's her claim--not opposing actual meritocracy, but pseudo-meritocracy that ignores an unlevel playing field and declares the outcome to be a result of merit when that is clearly not the only material factor.

As I understand it, the author does not make the distinction between pseudo and actual.

She considers all meritocracy to be inherently racist, without qualification.

She claims all meritocracy ignores the levelness of the playing field. Yeah, well so what, that's the whole point.

You don't give an NFL starting quarterback job to a lesser skilled person out of compassion for his unfortunate circumstances. If you want the best of the best, then all other factors are irrelevant. That's the exact opposite of racist.

Perhaps her complaint is that meritocracy is sometimes applied in situations where maybe it is not useful or appropriate. But still, that does not make meritocracy itself racist.

Maybe I'm not properly versed on her entire argument--but you're still speaking to a different point than I am. If one person is not a better player than another, then I agree that shouldn't factor in if the objective is to identify the best player, even if the disparity in ability is due to unfair circumstances. In that case you address the circumstances--you don't stop looking for the better player.

I am, and I suspect the author is, referring to something different--if you have two players in a game, and the rules of the game put one at a handicap, the outcome of the competition does not necessarily identify the best player.

[xouper]

Maybe I'm not properly versed on her entire argument--but you're still speaking to a different point than I am. If one person is not a better player than another, then I agree that shouldn't factor in if the objective is to identify the best player, even if the disparity in ability is due to unfair circumstances. In that case you address the circumstances--you don't stop looking for the better player.

I am, and I suspect the author is, referring to something different--if you have two players in a game, and the rules of the game put one at a handicap, the outcome of the competition does not necessarily identify the best player.

If that is the point, then the complaint is not about meritocracy itself, but rather that in certain circumstances it may not be applied appropriately. In neither case, though is it racist.

Secondly, your complaint is how merit is defined. That too does not make it racist. Meritocracy simply means finding the best in accordance to how "best" is defined. As long as race is not part of the definition of merit, then it cannot be racist.

One could make the same argument that meritocracy is sexist, for example because there are no female NHL players. Sorry, but that argument does not make meritocracy sexist.

[xouper]

I'd like to pose a meta-question related to the opening post.

If race is not a thing, as some people claim, then how can anything be racist?

[ed]

Maybe I'm not properly versed on her entire argument--but you're still speaking to a different point than I am. If one person is not a better player than another, then I agree that shouldn't factor in if the objective is to identify the best player, even if the disparity in ability is due to unfair circumstances. In that case you address the circumstances--you don't stop looking for the better player.

I am, and I suspect the author is, referring to something different--if you have two players in a game, and the rules of the game put one at a handicap, the outcome of the competition does not necessarily identify the best player.

If that is the point, then the complaint is not about meritocracy itself, but rather that in certain circumstances it may not be applied appropriately. In neither case, though is it racist.

Secondly, your complaint is how merit is defined. That too does not make it racist. Meritocracy simply means finding the best in accordance to how "best" is defined. As long as race is not part of the definition of merit, then it cannot be racist.

One could make the same argument that meritocracy is sexist, for example because there are no female NHL players. Sorry, but that argument does not make meritocracy sexist.

I think the point has merit though it is masturbatory bullshit.

She is saying that, because of past and present circumstances that relate directly to race, any measure of "merit" is hopelessly influenced by those racially based factors and is therefor racist. Fair enough. But then again, so is virtually any measure of anything. Life, as the saying goes, happens. And ans Jack Kennedy said, "life isnt fair".

The implication of the argument is that, like golf, certain people should be given a handicap. So while your doctor really isn;t that good, he gets points for having come from a background where abuse may or may not have occurred. This should give you comfort has he attempts to tie off that bleeder by feel.

The correct response to this silly woman is "so?". This is one where one has to suck it up.

[Pyrrho]

The paper runs to 40 pages including references. I haven't time to read it this evening but I do plan to read it so I can opine upon it with some level of competency.

[gnome]

I get into this debate all the time, even among friends on the left.

https://www.goombastomp.com/wp-content/ ... uote-2.jpg

Forget the post modernist trolling from Abdul. There is a semantic problem here but it's explainable.

The term "racism" is being used to refer to two different things. Perhaps the more commonly used meaning is what I'll call "personal" racism. This is what most people think of when the term comes up--as it's done by individual choice. Someone decides to discriminate, someone thinks an ethnic minority is genetically inferior, someone thinks their race should be legally privileged, or that someone else's shouldn't be trusted most of the time. This can absolutely go against or for any race at all.

The other meaning, and the one most likely to be referred to by the left these days, can be called "institutional" racism. This refers to systems of oppression in our society that have racial impact--it pertains to how power is used, rather than the nature of people's opinions, so it can be deliberate or implicit. Because it is intended to mean an abuse of power, that is why lots of people on the left bristle at the term "reverse racism"--because someone with little power isn't able to oppress a demographic even if they are personally prejudiced.

There's lots to argue about in the boundaries and significance of either term. But before you can get anywhere you do need to make sure you're talking about the same thing, and I see this over and over again. The common practice on the left lately is for default meaning to be "institutional" when they mention it. I've often argued that's a mistake, as most people are thinking of the personal meaning when they hear the term, so when they hear that "blacks can't be racist against whites," they think someone's denying their observation of a black person that was prejudiced--it contributes to the idea of the reality-denying leftist. What is really meant is that blacks don't have the political power in our society to successfully oppress whites as a group. Maybe that's so and maybe it isn't, but if people don't realize that's what you mean, you're not getting anywhere with a slogan like that.

Rather than try to carve out a specialized version and make it the default meaning, how hard is it to add the term "institutional" when talking about it? I think it would get more real conversations going and less defensive hostility.

[Boss Paul]

I get into this debate all the time, even among friends on the left.

https://www.goombastomp.com/wp-content/ ... uote-2.jpg

Misquoting the Captain gets a night in the box!

[gnome]

double post

[gnome]

Now that I read gnome's screed more carefully, I come to the conclusion that he is correct and furthermore substantially in agreement with what I said more concisely and he calls trolling.

Modulo error:
gnome makes the mistake of judging others by himself. That is assuming others are intellectually honest and aren't totalitarian screwballs.

gnome assumes "real conversations" are what is desired by folks who use the term "institutional racism".

It is a deliberate tactic provoke to "defensive hostility" for the purpose of preemptively shutting down "real conversations".

A way of cross talking oldthinkers who think "racism" means a belief that one's race is superior. And it is implied that their opponents are "deep down" racist in this sense anyway.

A way of crushing ones enemies and hearing their lamentations, etc.

Believe it or not, a large number of people debating politics are actually trying to promote their opinion by honest means.
There are indeed people making arguments not in good faith. Isn't getting into these finer points how such fakery is recognized, by contrast?

I am explaining how an honest person can get into this kind of argument.

[Captain]

I get into this debate all the time, even among friends on the left.

https://www.goombastomp.com/wp-content/ ... uote-2.jpg

Misquoting the Captain gets a night in the box!

[ed]

The other meaning, and the one most likely to be referred to by the left these days, can be called "institutional" racism. This refers to systems of oppression in our society that have racial impact--it pertains to how power is used, rather than the nature of people's opinions, so it can be deliberate or implicit. Because it is intended to mean an abuse of power, that is why lots of people on the left bristle at the term "reverse racism"--because someone with little power isn't able to oppress a demographic even if they are personally prejudiced.

OK, I understand.

The problem is is that this is a racist stance from the gitgo. That power is somehow magically wielded in such a way as to only impact race or that race is differentially effected is a silly contention and one that is simply a lie invented to advance an agenda.

A far more compelling argument would take into account the economic factors that are, today, far far far more relevant than race, or gender for that matter.

The left's objective is to simply punish white men. They can wrap words around it and redefine things but that, at it's core, is what they want. They want white men to suffer for the sins of their fathers.

[ed]

As for ed's original question, the voice in that clip is the audio equivalent of blackface, complete with the white gloves.

Hardly.

re Michael Pfleger:

They are attuned to the words of a priest wearing a long, green, African-style vestment, who sounds for all the world like a black Baptist minister.

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/t ... oid=874774

Are you suggesting he is a minstrel show? Check your privilege white boy. You are simply hung up on an authentic regional american dialect. I question your love of freedom. You need to travel this great land of ours, you need to see what Shemp has seen as he wandered to and fro, selling siding and gargling the occasional ball. You are simply too grounded in your cloistered elite white existence to understand the complexity of our society. You have no appreciation for diversity. There, I said it. If a person does not sound like you, or have a form of pronunciation that you are familiar with (and approve of) it is to be feared and judged. That, my tubby, gay friend, is the core of racism. I, naturally, have transcended that and I am to be listened to.
:freedom:

[gnome]

Believe it or not, a large number of people debating politics are actually trying to promote their opinion by honest means.

Not if they use the expression "institutional racism".

I am explaining how an honest person can get into this kind of argument.

An honest person who argues with a post modernist is a sucker.

What you call "honest argument" is against their religion.

I use the term, am I being insincere?

By insisting that my argument would be made only by someone with ill intentions, you are poisoning the well instead of responding.

[gnome]

The other meaning, and the one most likely to be referred to by the left these days, can be called "institutional" racism. This refers to systems of oppression in our society that have racial impact--it pertains to how power is used, rather than the nature of people's opinions, so it can be deliberate or implicit. Because it is intended to mean an abuse of power, that is why lots of people on the left bristle at the term "reverse racism"--because someone with little power isn't able to oppress a demographic even if they are personally prejudiced.

OK, I understand.

The problem is is that this is a racist stance from the gitgo. That power is somehow magically wielded in such a way as to only impact race or that race is differentially effected is a silly contention and one that is simply a lie invented to advance an agenda.

A far more compelling argument would take into account the economic factors that are, today, far far far more relevant than race, or gender for that matter.

The left's objective is to simply punish white men. They can wrap words around it and redefine things but that, at it's core, is what they want. They want white men to suffer for the sins of their fathers.

Bolding mine. "Only" impacting race is not part of the argument. There are simultaneous impacts affecting many demographics--it is a specific case of a larger phenomenon of institutional power harming marginalized groups--which is the whole point of these groups allying instead of each waging their own battle.

[gnome]

When was the term invented, by your reckoning? And I described a perfectly useful definition, so nice try.

[sparks]

Give up gnome. You've already lost the argument.

[gnome]

Lost at a fallacy-flinging contest, perhaps.

[xouper]

. . . There is a semantic problem here but it's explainable.

The term "racism" is being used to refer to two different things. Perhaps the more commonly used meaning is what I'll call "personal" racism. This is what most people think of when the term comes up--as it's done by individual choice. Someone decides to discriminate, someone thinks an ethnic minority is genetically inferior, someone thinks their race should be legally privileged, or that someone else's shouldn't be trusted most of the time. This can absolutely go against or for any race at all.

The other meaning, and the one most likely to be referred to by the left these days, can be called "institutional" racism. This refers to systems of oppression in our society that have racial impact--it pertains to how power is used, rather than the nature of people's opinions, so it can be deliberate or implicit. Because it is intended to mean an abuse of power, that is why lots of people on the left bristle at the term "reverse racism"--because someone with little power isn't able to oppress a demographic even if they are personally prejudiced.

There's lots to argue about in the boundaries and significance of either term. But before you can get anywhere you do need to make sure you're talking about the same thing, and I see this over and over again. The common practice on the left lately is for default meaning to be "institutional" when they mention it. I've often argued that's a mistake, as most people are thinking of the personal meaning when they hear the term, so when they hear that "blacks can't be racist against whites," they think someone's denying their observation of a black person that was prejudiced--it contributes to the idea of the reality-denying leftist. What is really meant is that blacks don't have the political power in our society to successfully oppress whites as a group. Maybe that's so and maybe it isn't, but if people don't realize that's what you mean, you're not getting anywhere with a slogan like that.

Rather than try to carve out a specialized version and make it the default meaning, how hard is it to add the term "institutional" when talking about it? I think it would get more real conversations going and less defensive hostility.

Here's my understanding:

If a social institution results in disparate outcomes of certain demographics (whether explicitly or implicitly, intentional or unintentional, exclusively or only partly) on the basis of race, then that is "institutional racism". But when a social institution results in disparate outcomes (whether explicitly or implicitly, etc) on the basis of other factors and not the result of race, then that is not racism, by definition.

More specifically, the mere fact that a certain demographic group finds itself at a systemic disadvantage does not automatically imply that the social system that put them there (or keeps them there) is racist. It is only racist if race is (or was) part of the motivation for that outcome.

It is not reasonable to stretch the definition of institutional racism to include social institutions where race is not why the outcome is what it is.

Many of the examples of so-called "institutional racism" are not based on race and thus are not racist, even if the outcome affects one race more than another.

Meritocracy is one example of non-race based discrimination, and thus it is not racist, by definition, because it specifically does not use race as a criteria for choosing (neither explicitly or implicitly). And this is true even though sometimes it may seem that some races (or ethnic groups) experience a less favorable outcome.

Example: Are the NFL or NHL to be considered racist because the percentage of black players does not represent the population at large? Of course not. Their use of meritocracy in those leagues is not racist.

And this concept is not just my personal opinion. See for example:

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[4][5]

In other words, if race is not part of the motivation or decision-making process (explicitly or implicitly), then it is not racism, whether by an individual or an "institution".

On this basis, I reject the label "institutional racism" being applied merely because the outcome seems to affect certain races or ethnic groups more than others. If that outcome is not because of race (whether in whole or in part), then it is not racist. Power is not relevant.

This is why I say meritocracy is not racist and why I reject the claim by professor Laurie Rubel (of Brooklyn College City University of New York) that meritocracy is racist.

[Anaxagoras]

https://www-latimes-com.cdn.ampproject. ... snap-image

Someone says this is offensive. Can you guess why?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latime ... utType=amp