General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Gloves | 12,001]

When did this turn into a being discriminated against dick measuring contest? 

Everybody pause, take a deep breath, and straight up RESTART your conversations in here before the thread gets closed and/or people start getting individual warnings. I slept in so didn't get to watch the shit show pile on in real time and just had to read through the last few hours of stuff, and I'd say nobody's being particularly good in here.

NOBODY should be pointing at anyone else and making assumptions. This is like the one fuckin' serious rule in here - don't attack each other. Talk about your disagreements, talk about why you think the other person/side is wrong, yes. DO NOT call each other names, or make assumptions about each others' life experiences. Nobody should be in here defending their experiences; you can share, sure, but all I see is a bunch of "I have it worse than you so you couldn't understand". 

This is baby shit.

Try again.

[Estil | 1,282]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

Well, as much as cats can act like asses sometimes, yeah I'd generally prefer cats to humans I reckon.

Look I am as much a wannabe crazy cat lady as you'll ever find but even I will concede that.  Observe...

For this guy's sake I sure hope this video was only an act...

And you know what, birdies can be assholes too!  Thing is though, the birds are mercilessly teasing and mocking poor Kitten (Simon's Cat's sidekick) and I don't think Kitten even notices.

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Estil

[cartman | 195]

12 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Like I said, some, sure.

But to automatically dismiss progressive activism as " egos need to be heard and pumped up" is disingenuous. If you're constantly seeing it as people doing it for the likes, or that their causes are "petty bullshit", then that says more about you than them.

 

It was used to portray them as "the other." The "outside the tribe" and therefore not worthy of inclusion.

When people talk about systemic racism, this is part of it. It ingrains itself into the culture, making it easier to promote discrimination. "Oh, black people are loud and rebellious, they need to be in their place." "Oh, Asians are book smart, they don't need any artistic education." And that's just a sampling of what I've personally seen. I'm sure that people in those groups can attest to more.

People base their ideas on cultures on what they see in movies and TV, and when they meet the people for real, they treat them very shittily, even when they have the best of intentions.

Are stereotypes interesting? Yes, and that's the trap.

When you start assuming people are a certain way due to stereotypes, that's when the trouble starts. People are diverse. We need to start recognizing that.

Does that mean getting rid of all stereotypes wholesale? No, and no reasonable person would expect that. It's about improving how we handle it.

Not necessarily. It depends on context.

Can Japanese actors do the Civil War? Sure. But if it starts to be a one dimensional portrayal with stereotypes, it runs into the same issues. Maybe not as amplified, given the power white culture has, but the argument can be made.

Would you portray Martin Luther King Jr. as someone other than black? Or hire a non-black actor to realistically portray him?

Of course not.

Because being black was an intrinsic part of his identity, and who we know him for.

Again, context.

John Wayne portraying Genghis Khan was weird. I understand they wanted a big star for the role, but he sucked at that portrayal, and you watch it now and its laughable. Nowadays you wouldn't even think of putting a non-Asian actor in that role. And that's a good thing.

Can Scarlett Johansson play a transgender person? Well, it would depend on the role. I don't see her playing Nicole Maines in a movie, as Nicole Maines exists, is an actor herself, and f'n lived the life of Nicole Maines, so you'd go with her over Scarlett. Nicole Maines would have the inside track on that role.

Yes, actors can pretend to be something else, but you really have to stop and look at what you're doing before you just willy-nilly cast a role. It's not to say you can't, just that you have to be aware of what you're doing.

Again, context. You have to take a hard look at what you're actually doing and portraying.

It's that having to think and analyze thing. Yes, I know it sucks to actually use your brain. But guess what, that's not the worst thing in the world, now, is it?

 

 

What are these "progressive" points? Except furthering identity politics and paving the way for censorship.

How do you figure "the other" is not worthy of inclusion? He may or may not be depending on who the character is facing or what the movie is about no? But if it's say warfare then someone must be the enemy. That doesn't mean the people are in real life just as little as they are a character in general. You're not a soldier either just because someone with your ethnicity portrayed you. 

I would say systemic racism is bonafide lack of rights and something tangible not what you're mentioning there. It doesn't have to be policy that's on paper but it does have to be pervasive. Anecdotal instances of someone thinking you're smart or rebellious are not systemic i would say.

I'm not so sure that people are taking movies at face value to the extent that you make it out here i think or if they do it's their own fault not the movies. Should we stop gaming violent games? 

So people in Japan can play white characters if they're multi-dimensional. Can whites play multi-dimensional Jap/black characters and historical events? Who is going to sit and decide what's dimensional enough should there be a dedicated reviewboard for this? 

Why do you feel MLK can't be played by a non-black? It will be an intrinsic part in his identity with a white actor too because he's still cosplaying the blackness. Or it will suck ass but wich is the issue, disresoect or suckyness? There already are sucky ass movies without this factor but i don't object to them existing.

She was supposed to play a real person yeah but since when has that been relevant? Hollywood butchers "based on true fact" movies all the time with fiction and half-truth that don't mean shit. The issue wasn't that it was SJ not being trans herself that got them to raise a stink.

The thing is that it's all arbitrary. It's you who has to do the brainwork to untangle the whole mess since you're the one putting up the qualifiers. 

[Strange | 1,706]

2 hours ago, JamesRobot said:

Nope.  I hate all you people equally. 

 

[Tulpa | 3,582]

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

What are these "progressive" points? Except furthering identity politics and paving the way for censorship.

 

Censorship is a government body dictating what can and can't be said. Far cry from society doing that. Society can determine what is and isn't acceptable. We've done it before. Most countries outlawed slavery. I'd say that was a good societal move.

Progressive activism is about working towards a better, more inclusive role.

If you've made your mind up that its all identity politics and censorship then then there's not much further I can say about it, other than I think you have a very narrow view of it.

I'd encourage you to actually look deeper into it. You may be surprised in what you find.

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

How do you figure "the other" is not worthy of inclusion? He may or may not be depending on who the character is facing or what the movie is about no? But if it's say warfare then someone must be the enemy. That doesn't mean the people are in real life just as little as they are a character in general. You're not a soldier either just because someone with your ethnicity portrayed you. 

 

"The other" is a way of dehumanizing people you are against. It works insidiously well. It's used in propaganda. Entire books have been written about it.

It's any way to portray the other side as "not like us, and therefore bad." It works on the principles of tribalism.

It was fine when we were cavemen worried about another tribe killing us. We don't live in caves anymore. We're a global world. We need to work to be more inclusive.

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

I would say systemic racism is bonafide lack of rights and something tangible not what you're mentioning there. It doesn't have to be policy that's on paper but it does have to be pervasive. Anecdotal instances of someone thinking you're smart or rebellious are not systemic i would say.

 

 

And this is why systemic racism exists. When you definite it as "that's obviously racist." Then the little things that seep into culture get spread around unchecked. People often call them "Microagressions." Maybe a nitpicking term, but it describes something that minorities have said has existed for decades keeping them repressed, and the dominant culture would never believe them because "well, I'm not using the N-word" or "Hey, I didn't lynch anyone today."

You really need to take a look at all the ways racism can creep into everyday life.

Don't worry, you're not going to lose your ability to make fun of things. Like I said, there's a ton of shit in the world that is funny that doesn't resort to, you know, degrading someone for who they are.

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

I'm not so sure that people are taking movies at face value to the extent that you make it out here i think or if they do it's their own fault not the movies. Should we stop gaming violent games? 

It doesn't have to be a conscious effort, it can work on the subconscious level, making these "microagressions" seem okay. And people do take their cues from pop culture, and not just the more racist stuff.

That's why it gets so ingrained. It's stuck in the fabric.

We need to be cognizant of when it happens and work to get it out of the system when we see it causes harm.

Is it going to happen overnight? No.

But if we don't do it, we're ensuring it'll be here to stay.

Violent video games are a separate issue, but I'd argue there's a different, more overt dynamic there, with significant differences.

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

So people in Japan can play white characters if they're multi-dimensional. Can whites play multi-dimensional Jap/black characters and historical events?

Possibly, though it both cases it would have to have really deliver on the message of what it's portraying. It would likely be more symbolic.

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

 Who is going to sit and decide what's dimensional enough should there be a dedicated reviewboard for this? 
 

We need nothing this extreme. We'll know it when we see it. You're an educated guy, if you look at it critically, you can see if it succeeds or fails.

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

Why do you feel MLK can't be played by a non-black? It will be an intrinsic part in his identity with a white actor too because he's still cosplaying the blackness. Or it will suck ass but wich is the issue, disresoect or suckyness? There already are sucky ass movies without this factor but i don't object to them existing.

MLK is an important black figure. You can't divorce his black identity from that. A white actor could not portray him in a realistic setting. Perhaps a very stylized setting and story could, but damn, you'd have to do an absolute fantastic job of portraying a profound point in doing so. Like what Hamilton did, times a thousand or more.

If you just cast a white actor in blackface and creating an otherwise realistic movie, it's just insulting.

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

She was supposed to play a real person yeah but since when has that been relevant? Hollywood butchers "based on true fact" movies all the time with fiction and half-truth that don't mean shit. The issue wasn't that it was SJ not being trans herself that got them to raise a stink.

 

Like I said, it depends on the context, and the fact that there are transgender actors already out there, and a number of other factors.

38 minutes ago, cartman said:

The thing is that it's all arbitrary. It's you who has to do the brainwork to untangle the whole mess since you're the one putting up the qualifiers. 

It's only a mess if you let it be a mess. That's on you.

We're supposed to educate ourselves on any number of things about how the world works. It's how humans progress.

If you truly want to understand this situation, there are plenty of ways to do it. The whole situation regarding African-Americans and their current plight has spurned a number of resources that can lend you insight. It's just a google away. If you're serious about understanding this issue, there's plenty of opportunity. Same with transgender issues, with other cultures. It's been proven that increasing knowledge and actually getting to know other cultures increases inclusion, tolerance, and just being better human beings.

And be sure, I'm not claiming to be the end all, be all. I have my point of view, and I like to think it's an informed one, which I hope to improve as I live on.

If you'd rather just sit in a bubble, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't think you're that type of guy. You seem intelligent and willing to engage in conversation about this.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Tulpa

[Estil | 1,282]

Soooo...I guess maybe we can add race relations as well as religion as issues that might be too hot for TV, eh I mean VGS?

Wow, I can only imagine how it could be if we open up the mother lode of all Pandora's Boxes...the "a" word.  I'm strongly suggesting we don't.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Estil

[Tulpa | 3,582]

1 minute ago, Estil said:

Soooo...I guess maybe we can add race relations as well as religion that might be too hot for TV, eh I mean VGS?

 

I don't see why not if it's done intelligently. If it devolves into name calling, sure, but I've seen that happen in a discussion over Stadium Events.

We just need to be grownups.

1 minute ago, Estil said:

Wow, I can only imagine how it could be if we open up the mother lode of all Pandora's Boxes...the "a" word.  I'm strongly suggesting we don't.

What do you have against aardvarks?

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

I know that Was “mostly” directed at me, and I said my Piece to @fcgamer .  him and I have got into it over the years, and Have even bought and sold to each other so hopefully he knows I dont personally dislike him, just disagree on things. 
 

I still stand by everything I said. 
 

Comparing “X” to the discussion of systemic racism, is in itself proof of that racism. 

its kind of like when A white person says racism doesnt exist. 
 

Its not something that can be compared away, by saying “well whatabout this other thing”

[Estil | 1,282]

I dunno, @Tulpa, aardvarks aren't cute I guess?  Not to mention how terrible a costume it makes  (start at 7:35)

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Estil

[Gloves | 12,001]

1 minute ago, Estil said:

I dunno, aardvarks aren't cute I guess?  Not to mention how terrible a costume it makes  (start at 7:35)

It feels weird to say it in this thread of all threads, but let's try to keep the topic on discussion lol.

I don't want to see real debate drowned out by the technodrome. >_>

[Estil | 1,282]

Just now, Gloves said:

It feels weird to say it in this thread of all threads, but let's try to keep the topic on discussion lol.

I don't want to see real debate drowned out by the technodrome. >_>

Yeah I think the Technodrome by this point is plenty drowned already.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

3 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

White privilege victims.

 

We only had so many poking around until Trump made it Cool (with a little help from Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson)  but now its all the rage. 
 

Step 1-

Someone bring up racism? Pivot and talk about how YOUR life is unfair. 

I think Dave was trying to make a valid point that he is in the rare situation where white people experience actual racism.

No reason to melt down on him about it.

[Scrobins | 1,752]

9 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

I think Dave was trying to make a valid point that he is in the rare situation where white people experience actual racism.

No reason to melt down on him about it.

Except that racism isn’t just a mean remark, racism is the social and institutional oppression of a group of people such that authority itself is bent to subordinate them and deny them the basic tools to protect themselves or advance in society. As much as many East Asian cultures may have xenophobic tendencies, they have not enslaved white people, manipulated the law to incarcerate them en made them force them to perform labor virtually without compensation, or denied them basic services such as access to restaurants and swimming pools. 

Dave may have been the subject of prejudice (and I’m sorry to hear that happened to you), but he was not the victim of racism.

[cartman | 195]

11 minutes ago, Scrobins said:

Except that racism isn’t just a mean remark, racism is the social and institutional oppression of a group of people such that authority itself is bent to subordinate them and deny them the basic tools to protect themselves or advance in society. As much as many East Asian cultures may have xenophobic tendencies, they have not enslaved white people, manipulated the law to incarcerate them en made them force them to perform labor virtually without compensation, or denied them basic services such as access to restaurants and swimming pools. 

Dave may have been the subject of prejudice (and I’m sorry to hear that happened to you), but he was not the victim of racism.

No, racism can be "just" a mean remark. It can be a whole spectrum of things but remarks definitely qualify.

And there have been a bunch of people enslaving different people, like Arabs enslaving blacks. It's also the last regions to end it barely decades ago but i guess it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Scrobins | 1,752]

3 minutes ago, cartman said:

No, racism can be "just" a mean remark. It can be a whole spectrum of things but remarks definitely qualify.

And there have been a bunch of people enslaving different people, like Arabs enslaving blacks. It's also the last regions to end it barely decades ago but i guess it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

I don’t get the sense that you read what I wrote.

A remark itself can be racist when underlying it is an institutional oppression that empowers the speaker to reinforce the powerlessness of the person he demeans.  

Your other paragraph is a complete non sequitur as I have not stated that institutional racism does not exist elsewhere, just that it is not present in Dave’s situation. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

31 minutes ago, Scrobins said:

Except that racism isn’t just a mean remark, racism is the social and institutional oppression of a group of people such that authority itself is bent to subordinate them and deny them the basic tools to protect themselves or advance in society. As much as many East Asian cultures may have xenophobic tendencies, they have not enslaved white people, manipulated the law to incarcerate them en made them force them to perform labor virtually without compensation, or denied them basic services such as access to restaurants and swimming pools. 

Dave may have been the subject of prejudice (and I’m sorry to hear that happened to you), but he was not the victim of racism.

You don't have to have a history of slavery against a race for systemic racism to be in place.

There are very definitely institutional biases in place in many Asian countries that meaningfully constitutes racism.

I certainly wouldn't put it on par with American racism in earlier times, but it is incorrect to say it doesn't exist.

 

 

That said, I think it is an interesting trend to convert the word "racism" to exclusively mean "systemic racism" when historically it also applied to individual attitudes and motivations.  At least that was the commonly understood usage whether it was the formal definition or not.

Which inevitably leads to a lot of the confusion about how the label gets applied.

Edited June 6, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[cartman | 195]

Just now, Scrobins said:

I don’t get the sense that you read what I wrote.

A remark itself can be racist when underlying it is an institutional oppression that empowers the speaker to reinforce the powerlessness of the person he demeans.  

Your other paragraph is a complete non sequitur as I have not stated that institutional racism does not exist elsewhere, just that it is not present in Dave’s situation. 

There doesn't have to be any institutional oppression that's your own infusion of meaning to the word. The point is ofcourse to exclude white people because a very few select people in power are white so therefor the individual white is privileged by sheer association. What you've just done is actually made a racist remark because collective behavior/guilt is racism but you're "punching upwards" so it doesn't count right? 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

6 minutes ago, Scrobins said:

 

A remark itself can be racist when underlying it is an institutional oppression that empowers the speaker to reinforce the powerlessness of the person he demeans.  

 

Definition #1 of racism:

  prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

[Scrobins | 1,752]

2 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Definition #1 of racism:

  prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

 

And another definition would be:

Racism is defined as a power structure that allows one group to put a system in place where they use their race to direct discrimination against people of different race based on the belief that their own race is superior.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

3 minutes ago, Scrobins said:

And another definition would be:

Racism is defined as a power structure that allows one group to put a system in place where they use their race to direct discrimination against people of different race based on the belief that their own race is superior.

Also a definition (though I think it seems prone to confusion to not clearly distinguish that one as "systemic racism")

But it seems a bit obtuse to use an alternate definition to say that the primary definition didn't apply in Dave's case, which is pretty clearly what he was talking about.

And in fact, I suspect MOST people think of the definition I quoted versus the definition you quoted when confronted with the word "racism", in the generic with no modifiers.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

1 hour ago, arch_8ngel said:

I think Dave was trying to make a valid point that he is in the rare situation where white people experience actual racism.

No reason to melt down on him about it.

Sure, I guess. 
 

Just pretty insulted by someone getting called a name one time in their life and holding that up as equal to the discussion at hand. If Dave would have said someone spit in his face because he wanted to attend high school, I wouldnt have reacted the same way. 
 

I spent two weeks traveling the civil rights trail, educating myself on their struggle. Having that written off as “I have Black friends too” pissed me off.  

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

4 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Sure, I guess. 
 

Just pretty insulted by someone getting called a name one time in their life and holding that up as equal to the discussion at hand. If Dave would have said someone spit in his face because we wanted to attend high school, I wouldnt have reacted the same way. 
 

I spent two weeks traveling the civil rights trail, educating myself on their struggle. Having that written off as “I have Black friends too” pissed me off.  

Having been to the region and being somewhat familiar with how ethnically focused laws are in that part of the world, I am sure that is just an off the cuff example and Dave probably deals with it on a daily basis.

I would be genuinely surprised if he wasn't being discriminated against on his housing/rent, for instance.  But I am sure there are many daily interactions where whoever he is interacting with is making a whole slew of negative assumptions about Dave because of his race.

 

And I am not AT ALL suggesting that Dave somehow has it as hard as a black person in America, and I doubt he was saying that, either.

But he has a different insight into it than most of us would from our own personal experiences, unless we had spent significant amounts of time in places with strong laws supporting the native ethnicities versus immigrants.

Edited June 6, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[cartman | 195]

2 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Sure, I guess. 
 

Just pretty insulted by someone getting called a name one time in their life and holding that up as equal to the discussion at hand. If Dave would have said someone spit in his face because he wanted to attend high school, I wouldnt have reacted the same way. 
 

I spent two weeks traveling the civil rights trail, educating myself on their struggle. Having that written off as “I have Black friends too” pissed me off.  

Yeah but no one has really written of the segregation and lynchings of the civil right struggle it is you who is using that period and applying it today as if nothing has changed.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

6 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yeah but no one has really written of the segregation and lynchings of the civil right struggle it is you who is using that period and applying it today as if nothing has changed.

There is quite a vocal group that tries to make it sound like systemic racism isn't around anymore.

There is still considerable systemic racism in place, whether the average person has explicitly racist attitudes or not. (Though there are still plenty of racist attitudes percolating as well)

Edited June 6, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[Scrobins | 1,752]

17 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

And in fact, I suspect MOST people think of the definition I quoted versus the definition you quoted when confronted with the word "racism", in the generic with no modifiers.

I suppose that depends on your experiences. I changed what my default understanding of the word means because most of the people I knew used the definition I provided, including my college professors who are experts in the field of African & African American studies.

As for @cartman, I’m amused by your conclusions about me and any guilt you think I bear. I may have a light skin tone that causes me to pass, but I am mixed race and was raised in a predominantly black family. I feel no guilt for using a definition that I learned in a vigorous academic setting that also makes sense to me, and I don’t agree that I’m racist because I decline to abide by your notion that I must harbor guilt or dislike white people generally just because I don’t agree with you.