Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

OBJ playing catch with a chimpanzee - PETA not happy

giant24 : 1/8/2019 6:49 pm
Pretty cool if you ask me - I would if I had the chance but the issue of him getting injured is mentioned. Wonder how the Giants brass feel about it.
Why Giantsí Odell Beckham is in hot water with PETA - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 3 <<Prev | Show All |
"It's a goriller!"  
Chris684 : 1/9/2019 9:41 am : link
-Mike Francesa
while the initial joke wasn't funny  
Rocky369 : 1/9/2019 9:52 am : link
I can fully stand behind this comment.
Quote:
I hate everyone equally
A comment is only racist  
Everyone Relax : 1/9/2019 10:17 am : link
if the intent behind it was meant to be racist. Probably not the smartest joke to make but wow I can't stand what our society has become with this hypersensitivity.
This was a fun  
Tim in Eternal Blue : 1/9/2019 10:17 am : link
thread.
RE: RE: RE: OK, that joke didn't go down too well, my apologies.  
allstarjim : 1/9/2019 10:19 am : link
In comment 14255051 McNally's_Nuts said:
Quote:
In comment 14255002 allstarjim said:


Quote:


In comment 14254994 jcn56 said:


Quote:


I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.

Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.



It was a funny joke and you shouldn't have to apologize.



It was a funny joke to YOU, not to others. Not sure why your pea brain canít get that.


Doesn't matter if others found it funny at all, really. But if you're going to throw a bitch-fest about a joke (even an offensive one) then you probably shave your legs. It's probably about time for you to make the real man of your house a sandwich. What I'm saying is, maybe you get rubbed the wrong way about a joke, but if your female sensitivities are so fucking fragile you might as well go ahead and get the operation. Otherwise, try being a man, realize it's a joke, doesn't have a real impact on your life, and move on.
Lets all take a lesson from Morgan Freeman (God himself)  
giant24 : 1/9/2019 10:28 am : link
in an interview about race:

WALLACE: Black History Month, you find Ö

FREEMAN: Ridiculous.

WALLACE: Why?

FREEMAN: Youíre going to relegate my history to a month?

WALLACE: Come on.

FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

WALLACE: Iím Jewish.

FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

WALLACE: There isnít one.

FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

WALLACE: No, no.

FREEMAN: I donít either. I donít want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until Ö?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. Iím going to stop calling you a white man. And Iím going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. Youíre not going to say, ďI know this white guy named Mike Wallace.Ē Hear what Iím saying?
RE: OK, that joke didn't go down too well, my apologies.  
odunde : 1/9/2019 11:45 am : link
In comment 14254994 jcn56 said:
Quote:
I know given the way it's used in racial contexts why someone would be offended, but that wasn't the intent, was just trying to poke some fun as Norman being a dumb animal.

Why I overlooked jackass as pointed out earlier in the thread is beyond me, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time drawing that one up.


Thank you, jcn. I appreciate that you owned this and explained your intent. We all make mistakes. I know how corny it sounds, but I think the important thing to do is to own them and learn from them (something I'm sure I could do better myself).
RE: RE: RE: ok as long as we have gone down this rabbit hole...  
odunde : 1/9/2019 12:09 pm : link
In comment 14255021 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14254993 odunde said:


Quote:



I think I can answer this. No, the article you quoted is not racist for a few reasons. For one thing, racism requires a power imbalance. Since Ben is white, it can't be racist towards him. It could be prejudiced, but in this case the writer is white as well, so it doesn't apply.

Also, while the word neanderthal is often used to describe inappropriate, "unevolved" behavior, it does not (to my knowledge) have a racial or ethnic signifier to it, nor does it have a history of use to hurt a group of people.



I have to disagree with almost everything you said here...
There is nothing in the definition of racism about power imbalance (below I have quoted and linked Wikipedia). In fact, I have heard some black people accuse other black people of being racist against blacks. By you're logic about power imbalance that is impossible...

Furthermore, there is nothing that says a person of the same race cannot be racist, or say something that is or should be considered racist against their own race.

I have never met jcn, but what if he is black himself? What does that say about this whole thread?

Does it really matter the race of the author of that article? I have only ever heard "Neanderthal", used as an epithet, applied to white men. I would say that it is most definitely a term used to denigrate white men, usually who behave badly, but I have seen it used against somebody who simply disagrees, or even in some cases people who are doing their jobs such as police, national guard etc. It is both racist ans sexist. Don't forget there were Neanderthal women as well.

To drive this point home... I took my 6 year old son to Disney last week. My family was standing in line, right at the entry point to a ride, and woman came out of nowhere and tried to cut in front of us. All I say was "Hey, Hey", the woman turned to me and said "Ok fine, you don't have to be a Neanderthal about it". If you don't think it was used as a racial slur, I have news for you. The woman was not the same race. This incident being fresh in my mind is why I brought this up in the first place.

Racism as defined in Wikipedia


Quote:



Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1]

The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.[2] Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, slavery and segregation in the United States, and slavery in Latin America. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[3]

Racist ideology can manifest in many aspects of social life. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. Associated social actions may include nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism


Hi MCL
I appreciate you taking the time to read what I said and respond in a thoughtful way. Just to be clear Ė I donít expect to ďwinĒ this, or have you agree with me, but Iím glad weíre talking about it.
I donít take issue with wikipediaís definition of racism in the abstract, but I would focus on one key quote: ďThe use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.Ē The article then goes on to talk about racial discrimination, which I interpret as different from racism. There is a lot written about the idea the racism equation that I presented and there are plenty of arguments that counter it. The reason I appreciate this definition of racism is that I think it captures the way that racism exists in society. The reason that power is so important is because racial categories are a social construct created for the sole purpose of allowing certain groups to profit off of and subjugate other groups. Thereíd still be ethnic division, bigotry, and discrimination without this, but racism feeds off of and (in my opinion) requires power imbalance.
To your point about black people accusing other black people of racism, Iíd argue that oppressed people often internalize the message of the oppressor, and sometimes even weaponize it for personal gain. They might be saying racist things or leveraging racism, but I think there is a distinction between those ideas and BEING racist. I recognize this gets muddy, but I donít want to delve deeper into that, because as a white guy, it doesnít feel like my place.

With regard to your perception of the word Neanderthal, Iím not sure what to say other than that I disagree with your interpretation. I agree that the word is used to accuse someone of being a chauvinist or piggish, but Iíve never seen it as being anti-white. I did a quick search for examples of this and struck out. Even urban dictionary, which never fails to include every offensive interpretation of a word or phrase, focuses on gender when it comes to the word Neanderthal. It seems to me a woman of color could use that word (even if she had no cause) because you are a man, not because you are white. However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, Iíd argue it isnít racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.
No offense,  
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/9/2019 12:13 pm : link
but this makes no sense at all:

Quote:
However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, Iíd argue it isnít racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.


You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?

Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?

RE: RE: .  
arcarsenal : 1/9/2019 12:20 pm : link
In comment 14254752 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
In comment 14254739 arcarsenal said:


Quote:


Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.



These things arenít harmless. I donít care what heís done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.


Again - he didn't mean it to be racist at all. Intent matters and he explained that it was probably not the best choice of words, just as I figured he would.

We don't need to burn him alive because of it or make it into a major ordeal and I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying based on the history of the poster, I think it was fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain it. If there was no ill-intent behind it, we can take it for what it was and move on.

We aren't going to make progress in repairing the racial divide in this country any quicker by pointing the finger at people who aren't racist.
RE: No offense,  
odunde : 1/9/2019 12:22 pm : link
In comment 14255410 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
but this makes no sense at all:



Quote:


However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, Iíd argue it isnít racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.



You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?

Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?


My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.

This is where..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/9/2019 12:27 pm : link
I'm lost:

Quote:
I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.


What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??

Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?
It could have simply  
steve in ky : 1/9/2019 12:34 pm : link
been pointed out that it wasn't the best choice of words and could be offensive to a lot of people without alluding he was a racist.



RE: RE: No offense,  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 12:49 pm : link
In comment 14255439 odunde said:
Quote:
In comment 14255410 FatMan in Charlotte said:


Quote:


but this makes no sense at all:



Quote:


However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, Iíd argue it isnít racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.



You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?

Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?




My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.

I would define any prejudice or bigotry based on race, racism. Who holds power doesn't matter.

Basically it seems you are condoning racism toward white people because whether real or perceived you believe that white people have the power. By your own definition, I would argue that that very point of view is racist because it seeks to turn the balance of power. Only when white people are no longer perceived has holding the balance of power would you consider it racism.... Seems like pretty shaky ground to me.

Since you mention Urban Dictionary I looked myself and found this nugget:

Quote:

Neanderthal
A Caucasian human.
A white person.
White people are Neanderthals.
by CherylCheryl January 20, 2018


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neanderthal
You people are all insane.  
Mike in ramapo college : 1/9/2019 12:49 pm : link
Yes, I said you people. So I am singling out each of your ethnic backgrounds (despite not knowing them) and you are all free to think that I meant it in a derogatory manner.
RE: You people are all insane.  
jcn56 : 1/9/2019 12:53 pm : link
In comment 14255487 Mike in ramapo college said:
Quote:
Yes, I said you people. So I am singling out each of your ethnic backgrounds (despite not knowing them) and you are all free to think that I meant it in a derogatory manner.


Well, I tried to make it clear that I'm not a racist, I'm an asshole, but then the Asshole Association of America called to say they didn't appreciate me self-identifying with them. Bunch of assholes.
RE: RE: RE: No offense,  
odunde : 1/9/2019 1:00 pm : link
In comment 14255485 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14255439 odunde said:


Quote:


In comment 14255410 FatMan in Charlotte said:


Quote:


but this makes no sense at all:



Quote:


However, even if she called you a cracker, for lack of a better example, Iíd argue it isnít racist, but bigoted and prejudiced, because of the working definition of societal racism that I use.



You mean it is OK to insinuate that jcn is racist, but if a black woman called a white man a cracker, intentionally, it wouldn't signify that?

Isn't making a slur based on a person's color one definition of racism?




My argument is not intended to justify that woman's actions, and at no point was my argument that jcn is racist. I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.



I would define any prejudice or bigotry based on race, racism. Who holds power doesn't matter.

Basically it seems you are condoning racism toward white people because whether real or perceived you believe that white people have the power. By your own definition, I would argue that that very point of view is racist because it seeks to turn the balance of power. Only when white people are no longer perceived has holding the balance of power would you consider it racism.... Seems like pretty shaky ground to me.

Since you mention Urban Dictionary I looked myself and found this nugget:



Quote:



Neanderthal
A Caucasian human.
A white person.
White people are Neanderthals.
by CherylCheryl January 20, 2018




https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neanderthal


You're right about urban dictionary! I didn't read far enough down. So there are some people out there who use this word through a racial lens. I'd argue the more common usage is still connected to gender. But more to MY point, either way I don't consider it racist.

We have different definitions of racism, so we aren't going to agree, which is fine. I DO seek to turn the balance of power. I'd like for our institutions to not be built upon the notion of white supremacy. This isn't very realistic, but it is a nice dream. This does not mean I seek to see white people fully disempowered to the benefit of people of color. I'd just like everyone to have a fair shake and equal stake. That does involve us (white people) ceding some power.

To your last point, though it's not what I seek, sure, if white people someday live in a world where they have had every institution built to disadvantage them because of the color of their skin, then I'll happily acknowledge that calling a white person a neanderthal is racist.
And this one  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 1:06 pm : link
Quote:

Cave monkey
A racist term for white people. Dealing with how whites are from Neanderthals.


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cave monkey

And this:

Quote:

Slur Represents Reason & Origins
Caveman Whites Refers to the Neanderthals living in caves; used by rappers.

http://www.rsdb.org/race/whites
How about ongoing litigation against  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 1:20 pm : link
several major companies like Oracle, Google, Facebook where they have a massive over representation of Indians, and the Indians in power appear to be discriminating against hiring white men. These suits include the Indian consulting agencies, and many have been brought by the US Government not just individuals.

Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.

But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?
In general I agree that whites still  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 1:25 pm : link
hold a disproportionate balance of power, an that does need to shift.

Quote:
We have different definitions of racism, so we aren't going to agree, which is fine.


This is true. Although, racism is generally used as a tool to empower the racist, I do not think that it matters where the balance of power lies. Any form of prejudice or bigotry based on skin color, or race is racism.
RE: This is where..  
EricJ : 1/9/2019 1:37 pm : link
In comment 14255448 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:

What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??

According to the social justice warriors... there are no comments towards a white person that can be considered to be racist.

In fact, we can probably count on one hand the number of times a non-white person was called a racist in the media in 2018.
RE: This is where..  
odunde : 1/9/2019 1:41 pm : link
In comment 14255448 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
I'm lost:



Quote:


I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.



What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??

Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?


My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.

I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.

RE: In general I agree that whites still  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 1:44 pm : link
In comment 14255588 .McL. said:
Quote:
Although, racism is generally used as a tool to empower the racist, I do not think that it matters where the balance of power lies.


I think this is the key point in this thread. I am guilty of laughing at the joke and missing the the fact that it could be construed the wrong way. In the end, I agree the joke was insensitive and was clearly better off not being made. jcn himself admitted this. I can admit my immediate comment may have added fuel to that fire and was to some extent insensitive as well, I apologize to anybody offending by it. That said, neither jcn nor I were seeking to gain any power, or to cause others to lose power. Jumping to the racist card then is an overreaction. Insensitive, stupid, yeah ok. But the level of hypersensitivity has risen too high. As many people have stated on here, intent matters. I would argue that jcn had no intent, however the author of the article about Roethlisberger and the women I met in the park both had intent.
RE: How about ongoing litigation against  
odunde : 1/9/2019 1:46 pm : link
In comment 14255571 .McL. said:
Quote:
several major companies like Oracle, Google, Facebook where they have a massive over representation of Indians, and the Indians in power appear to be discriminating against hiring white men. These suits include the Indian consulting agencies, and many have been brought by the US Government not just individuals.

Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.

But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?


I'm not very well informed about these suits. Can you give me some good articles to read?
RE: Lets all take a lesson from Morgan Freeman (God himself)  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 1:51 pm : link
In comment 14255217 giant24 said:
Quote:

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until Ö?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. Iím going to stop calling you a white man. And Iím going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. Youíre not going to say, ďI know this white guy named Mike Wallace.Ē Hear what Iím saying?


^ This!!!
RE: RE: In general I agree that whites still  
odunde : 1/9/2019 1:52 pm : link
In comment 14255616 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14255588 .McL. said:


Quote:


Although, racism is generally used as a tool to empower the racist, I do not think that it matters where the balance of power lies.



I think this is the key point in this thread. I am guilty of laughing at the joke and missing the the fact that it could be construed the wrong way. In the end, I agree the joke was insensitive and was clearly better off not being made. jcn himself admitted this. I can admit my immediate comment may have added fuel to that fire and was to some extent insensitive as well, I apologize to anybody offending by it. That said, neither jcn nor I were seeking to gain any power, or to cause others to lose power. Jumping to the racist card then is an overreaction. Insensitive, stupid, yeah ok. But the level of hypersensitivity has risen too high. As many people have stated on here, intent matters. I would argue that jcn had no intent, however the author of the article about Roethlisberger and the women I met in the park both had intent.


Intent matters. So does subconscious bias and internalized racism. You weren't intentionally seeking power becuase jcn, you, me - we already have the power. The past four to five hundred years of western history have ensured that we have the power and virtually every institution in the US today works to ensure we keep that power.

RE: RE: This is where..  
ron mexico : 1/9/2019 1:53 pm : link
In comment 14255612 odunde said:
Quote:
In comment 14255448 FatMan in Charlotte said:


Quote:


I'm lost:



Quote:


I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.



What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??

Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?



My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.

I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.


Can an individual of color be racist if he does have power?

For example, what if Magic Johnson refused to hire white people to management positions in Magic Johnson Theaters and was overheard saying that he doesn't trust whitey.

Would that be racist?
RE: RE: How about ongoing litigation against  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 1:55 pm : link
In comment 14255622 odunde said:
Quote:
In comment 14255571 .McL. said:


Quote:


several major companies like Oracle, Google, Facebook where they have a massive over representation of Indians, and the Indians in power appear to be discriminating against hiring white men. These suits include the Indian consulting agencies, and many have been brought by the US Government not just individuals.

Being in that industry, I can attest to many of the things alleged in these suits.

But this is just one segment of the US, not every institution. If true, does that count as racism?



I'm not very well informed about these suits. Can you give me some good articles to read?


https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/oracle-is-facing-two-employment-lawsuits-in-california.shtml

Here is one about Oracle. Its interesting that "Non-Asians" (a euphemism for "Non-Indians" because Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc are referred to a "East-Asians") are paid less, but hired more...
RE: RE: RE: .  
eclipz928 : 1/9/2019 2:07 pm : link
In comment 14255430 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 14254752 BigBlueDownTheShore said:


Quote:


In comment 14254739 arcarsenal said:


Quote:


Not the best joke to make for obvious reasons, but there's no doubt in my mind that it wasn't at all racially motivated or meant to be in poor taste. jcn has been around a long time - I've never seen him post anything remotely racist. Pretty safe to assume this was harmless.



These things arenít harmless. I donít care what heís done before or how long he has posted. We are all adults and we know what words mean.



Again - he didn't mean it to be racist at all. Intent matters and he explained that it was probably not the best choice of words, just as I figured he would.

We don't need to burn him alive because of it or make it into a major ordeal and I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying based on the history of the poster, I think it was fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain it. If there was no ill-intent behind it, we can take it for what it was and move on.

We aren't going to make progress in repairing the racial divide in this country any quicker by pointing the finger at people who aren't racist.

I agree that "intent" as well as context matters. And although in this instance I take jcn at his word that he didn't mean anything by his joke, I'm sure that everyone on this thread commenting about what they believe his intent to be probably don't know him outside of a few of his posts on an online football forum.

Bottom line is that you can't ever know for sure what is in someone's heart without having a greater exposure of who they are as a person. And choosing to assume, without having that information,that there is no malice behind someone's comments is a privilege afforded to only those who have never belonged to a group of people with a history of bias and discrimination against them.
Thanks MCL  
odunde : 1/9/2019 2:07 pm : link
I will read the article. I'll also try to respond to the few others who have posed questions, but I really have to buckle down and do some work right now.

Sorry to duck away.
RE: RE: RE: This is where..  
odunde : 1/9/2019 2:10 pm : link
In comment 14255636 ron mexico said:
Quote:
In comment 14255612 odunde said:


Quote:


In comment 14255448 FatMan in Charlotte said:


Quote:


I'm lost:



Quote:


I'd argue that jcn's comment was racist, even if it clearly was not intended to be racist. I'd argue that a black woman calling a white man a cracker is prejudiced and bigoted, not racist.



What comment by a black person directed towards a white would be racist??

Why is jcn's use of the word primate, which could be construed as meaning human as much as it can be construed to mean a derogatory term of a monkey, but a woman's use of the word cracker can't really be construed any other way as it certainly isn't referring to a tasty snack in any stretch?



My response would be that no comment by a black person towards a white person is racist. Prejudiced or bigoted? Sure. Clearly other people here disagree with me.

I'm not saying the use of the word cracker is not prejudiced against white people. But it does not have the same kind of history of usage as comparing black people to monkeys. It also hasn't been leveraged in nearly as damaging ways.




Can an individual of color be racist if he does have power?

For example, what if Magic Johnson refused to hire white people to management positions in Magic Johnson Theaters and was overheard saying that he doesn't trust whitey.

Would that be racist?


They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him. So while he can certainly discriminate, because of societal power structures, I don't consider it racism. I know plenty of people will take issue with that. But i have to go take care of some things now, so I won't be responding for a while.
RE: RE: RE: In general I agree that whites still  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 2:22 pm : link
In comment 14255635 odunde said:
Quote:

Intent matters. So does subconscious bias and internalized racism. You weren't intentionally seeking power becuase jcn, you, me - we already have the power. The past four to five hundred years of western history have ensured that we have the power and virtually every institution in the US today works to ensure we keep that power.

Discussing "every institution in the US" would take this thread into political territory, we are dangerously to close to it as it is. So lets not go there.

Subconscious bias is very interesting...
A white woman walking alone down a street at night.
An unknown man approaches the other way.

Case 1: The man is white, no markings, well dressed.
Case 2: The man is black, tattooed, wearing a sweats and a hoodie.

I guarantee that almost every white woman facing Case 2 would be more nervous than Case 1.

Is she wrong?
What if the black man is a good guy, but he can see the fear on her face, how is he supposed to feel?

IDK...

There are all kinds of misquoted statistics, and statistics taken out of context both ways. It's hard to get to the bottom line truth.

There is also much more media coverage about crimes against white women than there is of women of other races. To a certain extent, that stokes a disproportional fear into the white woman. But since there is so much violent crime against women, perhaps its not such a bad thing that women in general should keep their guard up at all times.

Diving into all this stuff just gets too weedy. I get back to the Morgan Freeman comment. "Stop talking about it", at least the way we have been. Stop dividing people in general.
You..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/9/2019 3:18 pm : link
are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:

Quote:
They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.


Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.

Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?

What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.

That really should be irrefutable
Chimp  
uther99 : 1/9/2019 3:31 pm : link
pretty accurate, but noodle arm. UDFA
RE: You..  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 3:37 pm : link
In comment 14255775 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:



Quote:


They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.



Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.

Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?

What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.

That really should be irrefutable

odunde - I agree with FMiC, your definition is absurdly narrow. So narrow that it is itself racist because you are dividing people into groups, those that can and cannot be racist based on their race. If you recall Wikipedia's definition, that division was the core of of it. The term HAS to be applied equally to all people. Any other personal definition collapses on itself.
RE: Chimp  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 3:40 pm : link
In comment 14255792 uther99 said:
Quote:
pretty accurate, but noodle arm. UDFA

I don't know, I think about 35% of this site would prefer to cut Eli and play the chimp. Anything is better than Eli!!!
Back to my original point  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 4:10 pm : link
Although this discussion of the definition of racism has been both interesting and somewhat revealing, I want to get back to my original issue.

I certainly agree that simian based comparisons with blacks is at the very least insensitive and generally unacceptable.

If we all agree on that, I think that I have shown that Neanderthal is is also a racial and sexist slur. And I see Neanderthal used in media all the time. There was an incident with fans at a hockey game in Chicago not long ago. The write referred to the fans as Neanderthals. I have seen BR called a Neanderthal many times. There are plenty of other adjectives that can be used, brutish, loutish, uncivilized, primitive, yada yada yada. Why do we see reaction like this thread to a much more vague and unintentional reference, and we are all complacent with the overt usage of Neanderthal as a slur against white men?
Hey, Neanderthal's have feelings, too!  
JohnF : 1/9/2019 5:18 pm : link


Unless they're from Philly, of course. Then they're Eagle fans!
I looked at your User Profile  
therealmf : 1/9/2019 5:21 pm : link
and noticed your occupation is Youth Services Librarian. As a librarian you are aware of many of the reference materials available. For example Websters dictionary which defines racism as

Quote:
Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination


Please take note of the 3rd entry. This means that racism is prejudice based upon someone's race. It does not include any caveats regarding social hierarchies.

In a discussion it is important that there is mutual agreement on what words mean. You should not make up words or modify definitions of existing ones. It creates confusion and needless agitation for other posters. The fact that you insist that you have your own singular definition, apart from all others, is silly and makes you seem a bit daft. It also hints that you feel mentally superior to others and therefore not bound to conventional definitions. Funny considering the topic.

So here you have wasted the time of numerous posters for no reason except that you like to have "your own" definition to a word.

You're a librarian. Use the fucking dictionary!

RE: I looked at your User Profile  
odunde : 1/9/2019 6:29 pm : link
In comment 14255908 therealmf said:
Quote:
and noticed your occupation is Youth Services Librarian. As a librarian you are aware of many of the reference materials available. For example Websters dictionary which defines racism as



Quote:


Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination



Please take note of the 3rd entry. This means that racism is prejudice based upon someone's race. It does not include any caveats regarding social hierarchies.

In a discussion it is important that there is mutual agreement on what words mean. You should not make up words or modify definitions of existing ones. It creates confusion and needless agitation for other posters. The fact that you insist that you have your own singular definition, apart from all others, is silly and makes you seem a bit daft. It also hints that you feel mentally superior to others and therefore not bound to conventional definitions. Funny considering the topic.

So here you have wasted the time of numerous posters for no reason except that you like to have "your own" definition to a word.

You're a librarian. Use the fucking dictionary!


Yep. Iím a librarian and I have no problem understanding how a dictionary defines racism. Iím trying to discuss how racism functions in society. Itís a different thing. If you look up racism=prejudice + power you will see I hardly invented this idea itís been around for nearly fifty years. Youíll also find tons of writing on the idea, some that examines and expands on the argument Iím trying to make. And plenty more that will reinforce your suspicion that Iím full of shit. Iíd encourage you to read some of each.
RE: Back to my original point  
odunde : 1/9/2019 6:33 pm : link
In comment 14255849 .McL. said:
Quote:
Although this discussion of the definition of racism has been both interesting and somewhat revealing, I want to get back to my original issue.

I certainly agree that simian based comparisons with blacks is at the very least insensitive and generally unacceptable.

If we all agree on that, I think that I have shown that Neanderthal is is also a racial and sexist slur. And I see Neanderthal used in media all the time. There was an incident with fans at a hockey game in Chicago not long ago. The write referred to the fans as Neanderthals. I have seen BR called a Neanderthal many times. There are plenty of other adjectives that can be used, brutish, loutish, uncivilized, primitive, yada yada yada. Why do we see reaction like this thread to a much more vague and unintentional reference, and we are all complacent with the overt usage of Neanderthal as a slur against white men?


I mean, I have no problem discouraging the use of the term Neanderthal but itís a pretty weak comparison. It has none of the historical weight or toxicity that calling a black person a monkey or ape has. The later of these has been used by extremists in propaganda aimining to terrorize and murder people because of their skin color. The former, has a muddled history that some connect to race others connect to boarish behavior. Itís apples and oranges.
RE: You..  
odunde : 1/9/2019 6:47 pm : link
In comment 14255775 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:



Quote:


They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.



Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.

Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?

What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.

That really should be irrefutable


I'm not trying to be cute, but discrimination based on race is racial discrimination, not racism. If I used discrimination and racism interchangeably, that is my bad. I didn't intend to.

RE: RE: You..  
odunde : 1/9/2019 6:51 pm : link
In comment 14255803 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 14255775 FatMan in Charlotte said:


Quote:


are basically using discrimination and racism interchangeably:



Quote:


They can certainly discriminate. And be sued for discrimination. Even though Magic has individual power, i'd argue he is hamstrung by institutional systems working against him and others like him.



Racism is discrimination against a person because of their race. And this meaning is important because we can't really just go by what individuals believe. Your position is that there can be no racism of a black towards a white because of societal history and power.

Let's take that to an extreme and give that opinion value. What happens when some redneck's position on racism is that a white cannot be racist if there isn't actually a written record of the discrimination?

What places your position above his, but better yet, what if there are millions of people with different definitions of what is racism? We have to at least agree that discrimination of someone based on race is racism.

That really should be irrefutable


odunde - I agree with FMiC, your definition is absurdly narrow. So narrow that it is itself racist because you are dividing people into groups, those that can and cannot be racist based on their race. If you recall Wikipedia's definition, that division was the core of of it. The term HAS to be applied equally to all people. Any other personal definition collapses on itself.


The core of racism isn't just dividing people into groups. It is dividing people into groups in order to exploit and/or subjugate. When I talk about a power requirement, it is in part because of how liquid and dynamic racial categories have been. If you look at any immigrant group to this country, there was a time that they were other, before gradually gaining the privilege of whiteness. But the benefits of "becoming white" fully rest on non-white groups who suffer the costs of white supremacy. One group rises, the other pays the price of their rise. That is grossly over simplified, but it happens over and over.

Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.

I disagree that my definition is narrow, or inherently divides people into groups. It does, however, place a condition on the term: access to power.
Wasnít he playing  
Pete in MD : 1/9/2019 6:52 pm : link
with a baby tiger the other day? Does he have some sort of platinum zoo membership that they only give to famous people?
MCL, FMIC  
odunde : 1/9/2019 7:07 pm : link
And anyone else who wants to continue to talk about this, let me know and Iíll check back later and give you my email address. Iíd love to keep discussing this but i feel like we are exhausting the usefulness of Bbi as a medium for this kind of discussion.
RE: RE: RE: You..  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 7:44 pm : link
In comment 14255990 odunde said:
Quote:
In comment 14255803 .McL. said:
The core of racism isn't just dividing people into groups. It is dividing people into groups in order to exploit and/or subjugate. When I talk about a power requirement, it is in part because of how liquid and dynamic racial categories have been. If you look at any immigrant group to this country, there was a time that they were other, before gradually gaining the privilege of whiteness. But the benefits of "becoming white" fully rest on non-white groups who suffer the costs of white supremacy. One group rises, the other pays the price of their rise. That is grossly over simplified, but it happens over and over.

Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.

I disagree that my definition is narrow, or inherently divides people into groups. It does, however, place a condition on the term: access to power.


Listen to what you are saying:
Quote:

Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.


Wikipedia Definition of Racism
Quote:

The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.


There is not much difference in what you are saying vs. the Wikipedia definition. In your definition, you are very clearly dividing people into groups based on their innate capacities and ranking them. However, within the context of racism, you are making the black person superior. Your very definition of racism is racist.

I will grant you that there are people that wield racism as a weapon to gain or hold power. But the 2 are very different concepts. You can connect them to make a very specific argument about a given society, group or individual at a given time, but with fluid nature of society, the argument does not necessarily hold true at another point in time. This supposed definition was created at the height of the civil rights movement, its a political argument meant to galvanize a segment of the population into action. To its credit, it worked. Its not a social scientific argument. The changes in attitude about race in society (at least some portions of it) combined with the influx of people of various ethnic backgrounds over the past 50 years (since this political/fallacious idea was put forth), require the definition of racism to be more broad.

From the Wikipedia page Prejudice Plus Power
Quote:

The definition has been criticized by some academics for relying on the assumption that power is a zero-sum game, and for not accounting for the lack of uniformity in prejudicial attitudes.[6] Critics have also noted that this definition is belied by the fact that except in absolutist regimes, minorities, however disadvantaged they may be, are not powerless, because power is organized into multiple levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

Black people in this country are not powerless. Neither are Latinos, Muslims, Jews, Indians, East Asians, Whites, etc... Take a look at the 116th House of Representatives.

Regarding Neanderthal, I will grant you that in our current society, it doesn't have the level of toxicity that simian comparisons have, at least not right now. However, if it remains unchecked like simian comparisons were, who is to say it won't reach the same levels of toxicity in the future. I can tell you it felt pretty toxic to me at Disney. Its usage as a slur should not be condoned any more than the simian comparisons.
I still believe..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 1/9/2019 7:56 pm : link
you have created your own interpretation of racism which cannot be valid

Quote:
Race is the construct that allows white people to maintain their economic and social status. Black people can't be racist because they haven't been granted systematic access to the kind of power that gatekeepers require.


There are so many holes in this argument. In your belief system, a black person could call a white person every slur in the book and not be racist, even if they hate a white person with every fiber of their body and their intention is to hate them simply because they are white. That simply makes no sense.

But putting that aside, in your definition, racism is geographical. By definition, a white man cannot be racist when in China. And it raises a question - can a black person be racist in Africa? Can anyone but Hispanics/Latinos be racist in South America? Can the Japanese be racist to Chinese or is this impossible due to both having yellow skin?

You really can't make up definitions or it leads to a ton of loopholes
You may recognize this speach  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 8:26 pm : link
Quote:

In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protests to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy, which has engulfed the Negro community, must not lead us to a distrust of all white people. For many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.

[Ö]

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.


I will go with the MLK concept of racism over Patricia Bidol-Pavda.

regarding the Prejudice plus Power argument:
Quote:

It appears that the primary indoctrination mode for this thinking is liberal academia, quite often Marxist in leaning. The Marxist world frame is one where power is a fixed quantity, and groups compete for that power. If any one group has power, then that power was stolen from other groups, and the other groups must take the power back from the dominant group.

We don't live in a Marxist society, and I have no intention of doing so.
Although this definition of racism has taken hold  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 10:39 pm : link
in certain fringe groups... It is generally debunked by the vast majority of scholars. Here is a good article providing similar arguments that both FMiC and I have made to debunk this concept.

https://www.skepticink.com/flyingscotsman/2015/08/07/pseudo-liberals-check-your-understanding-of-privilege/

Quote:

For those unsure of what Iím referring to, the idea that straight white males (SWMs) cannot be subjected to bigotry of any flavour... these individuals wish to redefine bigotry in order to exclude a group of people. The irony of this should be rather obvious, and it only becomes more so as one delves into the details.

The supporting argument for their claim generally goes as follows:

Bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) is prejudice plus power/privilege (power and privilege are interchangeable in this context).
SWMs have power/privilege (socioeconomic, political, and institutional).
Therefore, it is impossible for SWMs to be victims of bigotry/impossible for groups without power to perpetrate bigotry.

There are several problems with this argument, the most obvious of which is its faulty premise. What it describes is institutional bigotry, which is a specific form of bigotry that barely scratches the conceptís surface. This definition can be traced back to Patricia Bidol-Padvaís relatively obscure 1970 book Developing New Perspectives on Race: An Innovative Multi-Media Social Studies Curriculum in Racism Awareness for the Secondary Level, and it isnít particularly well-subscribed .... That being said, letís accept the premise for discussionís sake.
...
[they] should be exquisitely sensitive to the folly of making wild generalisations about certain categories of people, particularly in light of the fact that they perceive said categories entirely as social constructions. If asked, they would endorse the idea of individuality, yet the irony is that doing so would instantly reveal the flaws in their argument. Individual experience cannot be reduced to a handful of elements within a sea of variables. Letís use an absurd example to illustrate the point.

Barack Obama is approached by a homeless SWM. He punches the homeless man, and then cites his hatred of white people as motive for doing so. Of the two people, who holds the power in this example? That the presidentís actions were motivated by racism should be obvious, but letís keep stacking the deck. In addition to being homeless, the man is in a wheelchair, was born with a slew of learning disabilities, and has suffered from severe clinical depression since the age of fourteen. In evaluating his quality of life, how much emphasis should we place on his race, gender, and sexuality? Is he in a more privileged position than the president simply because heís white? It should be clear that other factors have had a more profound effect on the manís quality of life. The example is deliberately absurd, but it neednít be.

Letís replace Obama with a gay black woman and the homeless man with a transgender woman. Is the gay black woman transphobic? Who is in a more powerful position? What if the example instead contains a white woman and a black man? Do we have a privilege mathematician on hand who can do the calculation for us? It should be abundantly clear that we donít have nearly enough information to determine who is more privileged, and it wouldnít matter even if we had comprehensive life histories. Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, transphobia is transphobia, and so on. We donít require a hierarchy of privilege in order to recognise bigotry when we see it.

Itís difficult not to view such ideas with cynicism. [They have] a habit of inventing arguments and buzzwords that appear designed for the sole purpose of allowing them to get away with things they spend their lives railing against. Itís one giant exculpatory gymnastics routine...
Another even better witten analysis of the  
.McL. : 1/9/2019 11:31 pm : link
absurdity of the Prejudice Plus Power idea

https://areomagazine.com/2017/06/16/racism-does-not-equal-prejudice-power/
Pages: 1 2 3 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner