White couple have car blocked, and are attacked by ten black youths - called "cracker" "White Whore"
235 replies, posted
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42597268] "How would world event X look through the eyes of a fourth grader?"[/QUOTE]
The creators would have that down pat, as they operate on the mental level of one.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42597268]Its a show designed to make fun of everyone and anyone in any and every way they can, while at the same time providing comic relief and social commentary with a story that starts with "How would world event X look through the eyes of a fourth grader?"[/QUOTE]
yes, which is why ever thinking it is in any way relevant is a very stupid thing to do. if they could make fun of people who believe in the universal constant of gravity, they would.
[QUOTE=Cone;42597242]South Park is funny but keep in mind that it's written by the kind of guys who find liberalism just as bad as conservatism, which is dumb no matter how you look at it[/QUOTE]
They've gotten a lot less "equal opportunity ridicule" in their aging though
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597294]"the dictionary definition of racism doesn't match my opinion of what racism is, therefore i am going to redefine it so that i can backpedal my argument into place"
[/QUOTE]
Look up the difference between a dictionary and academic meaning of a word. It's like the difference between the meaning of the word 'theory' in popular discourse and in science.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597294]"the dictionary definition of racism doesn't match my opinion of what racism is, therefore i am going to redefine it so that i can backpedal my argument into place"[/QUOTE]
yo that's not "my" definition that's the academic definition. And even if that weren't the case your understanding of language should be rich and complex enough that you could temporarily suspend your own definition of the word and appraise the argument i made on it's own merits instead of just saying "well the dictionary says youre wrong bro and the dictionary is the smartest guy i know so..."
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597294]
are you saying white people cant be victims of racism across the world?[/QUOTE]
it's cool. you can just ignore the million times i qualified my statements with "in the united states."
i put those words there because they mean things but you can just skip over them if youre busy. that's cool.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42597234][URL="http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html"]I don't know where the number 39 came from but it's completely made up.[/URL]
In the United States, the poverty rate for non-hispanic whites is 9.9% and the poverty rate for black people is 27.4%. The amount of poverty as a percentage of the demographic's population at large is the only value that matters here. You really gotta check the validity of whatever information people just throw at you.[/QUOTE]
While I do agree that percentages are far more important in such a statistic it doesn't entirely invalidate his claim. It's entirely possible for there to be more whites in poverty than blacks.
(roughly 6.3% of the population compared to about 4 or so)
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;42597382]Look up the difference between a dictionary and academic meaning of a word. It's like the difference between the meaning of the word 'theory' in popular discourse and in science.[/QUOTE]
I have. And none of it matches the vague crap that SigmaLamda spews out. Scientific defintions have metrics and a basis in reality. "You can be racist against those in power because i said so" without actually giving proper definitions is just meaningless.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597294]"the dictionary definition of racism doesn't match my opinion of what racism is, therefore i am going to redefine it so that i can backpedal my argument into place"[/QUOTE]
If you want to use the dictionary as an encyclopedia you probably won't hear much about talk about institutionalized discrimination and prejudice, though if you look it up online and scroll down a bit, most sites will proceed to talk about how racism was the backbone of many events that were mega institutionalized, such as slavery in the US.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42597391]yo that's not "my" definition that's the academic definition. And even if that weren't the case your understanding of language should be rich and complex enough that you could temporarily suspend your own definition of the word and appraise the argument i made on it's own merits instead of just saying "well the dictionary says youre wrong bro and the dictionary is the smartest i know so..."[/QUOTE]
"Racism is a system" is all you said.
That's not a definition that's some vague crap a 5th grader puts on the end of an opinion piece in lieu of a conclusion.
[editline]21st October 2013[/editline]
Somebody link me your definition because I don't see it.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;42597411]If you want to use the dictionary as an encyclopedia you probably won't hear much about talk about institutionalized discrimination and prejudice, though if you look it up online and scroll down a bit, most sites will proceed to talk about how racism was the backbone of many events that were mega instituationalized, such as slavery in the US.[/QUOTE]
well institutionalised racism is merely a subset of racism. Usually a racist belief held by a larger segment of the society instigating it and which enforces this worldview with an institutionalized means.
That doesn't invalidate the fact that non-institutionalised racism is still racism. But it's usually held by a much smaller segment of society.
As such it's usually best to separate the two terms as racist beliefs held by an individual and racist actions enforced by a society. That's another pretty important thing to keep in mind. The one combines subjective and objective notions the second is merely objective.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597408]I have. And none of it matches the vague crap that SigmaLamda spews out. Scientific defintions have metrics and a basis in reality. "You can be racist against those in power because i said so" without actually giving proper definitions is just meaningless.[/QUOTE]
I have properly defined every term I have used. If you think I am wrong tell me how instead of just throwing around vague, undirected critiques like that I'm "backpedaling."
Let me make it easier for you: what about the understanding of racism as a system as opposed to a belief is so wrong? What, specifically (aside from your linguistic prescriptivism), is so objectionable about that?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42597391]it's cool. you can just ignore the million times i qualified my statements with "in the united states."
i put those words there because they mean things but you can just skip over them if youre busy. that's cool.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but that's meaningless, as soon as I walk over the mexican border I'm now targetable by racism? Whereas before I wasn't? What if a new group comes into power, when am I targetable by racists?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597408]I have. And none of it matches the vague crap that SigmaLamda spews out. Scientific defintions have metrics and a basis in reality. "You can be racist against those in power because i said so" without actually giving proper definitions is just meaningless.[/QUOTE]
You didn't read what I said at all, did you? I was using a metaphor.
In science, theory means a scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Compare with 'just a theory' in popular discourse. This is the same thing.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42596907]Ok I responded to a bunch of different claims in your post but I decided to edit all that out so as to focus on this specific reply.
I genuinely misspoke and I apologize for the confusion that that caused. Let me explain, very clearly, what I believe. I believe that any member of any race can be racist, but that white people cannot ever be the victims of racism (they can only be the victims of prejudice). That is because I subscribe to the belief that racism and prejudice are separate things and that what racism is (contrary to the antiquated dictionary definition) is a system. In the United States white people are the only demographic group with enough social and political power for prejudice to actually manifest itself into actual (meaningful and statistically significant) discrimination and the systems which realize that discrimination are the singular "racism" that exists in this country. I'd be happy to argue with anyone about the nuances of this view but [I]only if they make an honest attempt to actually understand them.[/I][/QUOTE]
I think when people read posts such as the Tumblr ones posted above, they don't know whether they're talking on a US/western scale or universal if you get what I'm saying, like those make sense if they were talking about America but they don't take into account, for example disenfranchisement of Ainu in Japan or whatever, I mean yeah it's not relevant to [I]our[/I] situation, but I can understand it may give off the impression to some people that they're trying to say white people are inherently naturally oppressors, which obviously isn't the case
Also people get mixed up on other's definitions of racism
[QUOTE=Cone;42597327]yes, which is why ever thinking it is in any way relevant is a very stupid thing to do. [B]if they could make fun of people who believe in the universal constant of gravity, they would.[/B][/QUOTE]
And that would make a fantastic episode, don't you agree?
Its a parody, its comedy, thats all it is. Social commentary through humor. Crude, poorly voiced, poorly animated, humor. Basing a political opinion off of it is dumb, because its a fucking cartoon. In fact I wouldn't doubt that there is an episode making fun of people just like that.
Wait, you didn't think I was submitting south park as a counter-argument, did you?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42596476]lol if you think "a black person came up with it" somehow discounts a theory then do I ever have a word to describe you. Hint: it starts with an "r" and it's not "rubenesque."[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure you misread (or didn't read) his post.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;42596611]wtf, i keep reading these posts that imply as if tumblr people unanimously agreed that white people can't be attacked by other PoC's and that it's not racist if they did or other intense strawmanning
and the best you guys came up with are two dudes debating their own definition of racism is different than racial prejudice?[/QUOTE]
Redefining racism is, funny enough, exactly what Sigma is doing.
[QUOTE=Cone;42597327]yes, which is why ever thinking it is in any way relevant is a very stupid thing to do. if they could make fun of people who believe in the universal constant of gravity, they would.[/QUOTE]
Some of the best social commentary comes from comedy.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597446]Yeah but that's meaningless, as soon as I walk over the mexican border I'm now targetable by racism? [/QUOTE]
Maybe? I don't know a lot about race in mexico. That's why I said "in the US"
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597446]Whereas before I wasn't? What if a new group comes into power, when am I targetable by racists?[/QUOTE]
Possibly. Sorry but I never felt the need to specifically state "also I'm talking about right now, and not about a grim, hypothetical future where the robots have uprisen and they hate whitey" because I thought that was implicitly understood.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42597537]Maybe? I don't know a lot about race in mexico. That's why I said "in the US"
Possibly. Sorry but I never felt the need to specifically state "also I'm talking about right now, and not about a grim, hypothetical future where the robots have uprisen and they hate whitey" because I thought that was implicitly understood.[/QUOTE]
I have to admit I really don't understand the need to redefine racism as only institutional racism. Or not redefine, but limit and select out would be more appropriate.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;42597510]
Redefining racism is, funny enough, exactly what Sigma is doing.[/quote]
He is using a technical definition, like how, in the context of stars, metallic means any element heavier than helium, rather than the members of a certain part of the periodic table.
[quote]I have to admit I really don't understand the need to redefine racism as only institutional racism. [/quote]
It's useful for describing things where the intent wasn't motivated by racial animus, but the effect was the same as if it was. The whole intent versus effect kind of thing.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42597537]
Possibly. Sorry but I never felt the need to specifically state "also I'm talking about right now, and not about a grim, hypothetical future where the robots have uprisen and they hate whitey" because I thought that was implicitly understood.[/QUOTE]
But it's just way too vague. What if you're mixed race? What if only some people see you as a specific race? The issue is when you say things like "you can't be racist against the race in power" you have to have a clearcut definition of what the race in power is. What if I have a skin disorder and I appear white but am secretly not, am i targetable yet?
I just don't get the benefit of your supposed redefinition.
I never thought people still used "Cracker" seriously. The term is pretty common where I live, never really thought of it as a legitimate slur because of how it is treated. I have used it for years, now I wonder if I may have actually been offending people.
Jeep-Eep stop giving revenge dumbs if you're arguing with the person. You seem so fucking petty.
[editline]21st October 2013[/editline]
It doesn't really bother me that much but it makes me think you're a child.
[QUOTE=imptastick;42597600]I never thought people still used "Cracker" seriously. The term is pretty common where I live, never really thought of it as a legitimate slur because of how it is treated. I have used it for years, now I wonder if I may have actually been offending people.[/QUOTE]
I really don't think anyone is honestly offended by it
Even after I learned the origin and how it implies I'm a slave owner / descendent of slave owners it's still like whatever
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42597571]But it's just way too vague. What if you're mixed race? What if only some people see you as a specific race? The issue is when you say things like "you can't be racist against the race in power" you have to have a clearcut definition of what the race in power is. What if I have a skin disorder and I appear white but am secretly not, am i targetable yet?
[/QUOTE]
These are all perfectly valid questions that I'm not pretending to try to answer.
I'm talking about the interactions of groups-at-large and am doing nothing to discount that there are outliers.
[quote]But it's just way too vague. What if you're mixed race? What if only some people see you as a specific race? The issue is when you say things like "you can't be racist against the race in power" you have to have a clearcut definition of what the race in power is. What if I have a skin disorder and I appear white but am secretly not, am i targetable yet? [/quote]
Except you can infer the race in power here is Caucasian [i]because this is the United States were talking here*.[/i] If we were talking parts of post colonial Africa or Japan, you would have a point.
*Well, Caucasian and certain Asian ethnic groups, but for all useful intents and purposes the above is true
And the reason why I give you boxes are because I don't have bad reading to rate anymore. Also, might you want to look at some of your own ratings in this thread before you say what you did?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42597552]I have to admit I really don't understand the need to redefine racism as only institutional racism. Or not redefine, but limit and select out would be more appropriate.[/QUOTE]
It's because approaching racism as a system, as opposed to a belief, makes the vast quantity of statistical data and individual examples of the political, social, and economic disenfranchisement of certain minorities far more sensible and easy to understand.
It's the first step to creating a larger critical framework which can (at least honestly attempt to) holistically explain all race relations.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42597226]To be honest he's not arguing that affirmative action should not help minorities, but mostly about the fact that it might be wrong to target at minorities as opposed to at people who are in need of it, whether they are part of minorities or not.[/QUOTE]
I was agreeing with him I just worded it poorly.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;42597234][URL="http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html"]I don't know where the number 39 came from but it's completely made up.[/URL]
In the United States, the poverty rate for non-hispanic whites is 9.9% and the poverty rate for black people is 27.4%. [B]The amount of poverty as a percentage of the demographic's population at large is the only value that matters here.[/B] You really gotta check the validity of whatever information people just throw at you.[/QUOTE]
The poverty numbers are 22 million whites in poverty vs 10.6 million blacks in poverty. If both sets committed violent crime against the other at the same rate it come out around 2:1, yet the number is 1:39.
I would hazard a guess that a large chunk of it is a small group of poor black criminals against middle class whites in numerous muggings and robberies. Still the numbers don't add up to the airtime, discussion and time devoted to tackling and understanding this issue.
The hate crime numbers are obviously untrustworthy at best and biased against non blacks at worst.
[QUOTE]Analysis of the 1999 FBI statistics by John Perazzo in 2001 found that white violence against black people was 28 times more likely (1 in 45 incidents) to be labelled as a hate crime than black violence against white people (1 in 1254 incidents)[/QUOTE]
So not only is it 39 times more likely to occur its chances of being labelled as a hate crime are miniscule.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42597552]I have to admit I really don't understand the need to redefine racism as only institutional racism. Or not redefine, but limit and select out would be more appropriate.[/QUOTE]
I'm not totally sold on what words should be used for what either, although (and this is related to my other post) I noticed that a lot of historical discussions about [b]race[/b] were people making arguments for government sponsored segregation and such.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;42597510]Some of the best social commentary comes from comedy.[/QUOTE]
i never said it didn't, it's just that i wouldn't listen to Trey Park and Matt Stone as serious political commentators because of their personal views. they're funny, but beyond that they're just not the right guys to consider if you want to seriously know about politics and news.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;42597669]
The hate crime numbers are obviously untrustworthy at best and biased against non blacks at worst.
[/QUOTE]
Hey guy, you're using statistics to support part of your argument and then ignoring any other statistic which disagrees with your argument because it must be "untrustworthy".
That's bad fucking form dude. You can't do that shit while pretending to be "objective." If you came up with a sound critique of an individual statistic and then demonstrated that the statistics that support your argument all hold water when held to the exact same standard then you might be able to do that but you're not and you won't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.