General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Reed Rothchild | 9,521]

23 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Unless of course you are the likes of  Ward Churchill, Elizabeth Warren or Rachel Dolezal (aka Nkechi Amare Diallo) - in which case the rules seem to be vastly different (or more accurately mostly ignored/excused),

We have a president who "grabs em by the pussy"

There are no rules anymore

[VegHead | 127]

25 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Unless of course you are the likes of  Ward Churchill, Elizabeth Warren or Rachel Dolezal (aka Nkechi Amare Diallo) - in which case the rules seem to be vastly different (or more accurately mostly ignored/excused),

The rules aren't different.  I cannot speak to Ward Churchill because I don't know what he's about, but Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal do not get a pass at all.  Elizabeth Warren's heritage and lifestyle are clearly and predominantly white American.  Even if she has some small percentage of Native ancestry, her use of it for personal and political gain was wrong.  Do we really need to discuss Rachel Dolezal?  Of course she's in the wrong!  She's done the worst kind of appropriation I can think of, trying to pass herself off as someone and something she's not from a position of cultural power.  Her actions are inappropriate on so many levels, it really should be obvious to anyone with any sense that she should be ashamed of herself.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

2 minutes ago, epiclotus said:

her use of it for personal and political gain was wrong. 

Agreed. I'd like to point out that she has apologized for this as well. It doesn't make what she did right. But it's nice to see a politician admitting their mistakes with grace.

Has Donald Trump ever apologized for anything in his life? 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

Its funny how you are using lack of media coverage as some sort of support for whataboutism. 
 

Just because something got less media coverage, doesnt mean one side is accepting of something. 

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, epiclotus said:

It's not a political statement because it has nothing to do with politics in the sense of governance.  It's inappropriate because, as we learn more about our history and the ways different cultures have been treated through the actions of our predecessors, we should leave behind those kinds of activities which violate the dictum of respecting our fellow human beings.  So, when we recognize that the current population of America greatly benefits from wiping out the majority of the original population that inhabited these lands, it stands to reason that dressing up as a caricature of them for the purposes of play is unkind.  We can do better than disrespecting another people so that our children might have fun.  

People do take appropriation claims too far in some instances, and a person's intent has a lot to do with whether they are exploring and celebrating another culture, or if they are appropriating it for their own ends.  For example, I attended a play at a college that was in the kabuki style.  The actors were not Japanese, and yet they dressed as them and acted out the methods of another culture.  I see no problem with that, as participation in a culture can be highly education and personally rewarding.  Contrast this with a comedian who puts on blackface to get a laugh out of an audience for his/her own career advancement, and you can see the difference.  

I didn't say governance i meant it in the broader sense of the word.

Again, who says "we're not respecting our fellow human beings"? Yeah they did wipe out/subjugate those cultures (the people themselves mostly died off disease if i don't remember inaccurately, but ok) but that isn't really the point. Again with the Vikings: when they raided those monestaries on the outskirts of England and killed off all the priests. But nobody really lives that aspect, they romanticize the warriors. The kids romanticize the warriors too: the looks, the clothes, the fucking calling thing you do while tapping the hand over the mouth. We can recognize the bad aspects and have playtime they are not mutually exclusive.

A comedian has a different role to play so the outcome is different aswell. But it doesn't have to be bad or wrong.

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

11 minutes ago, cartman said:

who says "we're not respecting our fellow human beings"?

Uhh, our fellow human beings are the ones who are saying that. The ones who are being disrespected.

Edited February 21, 2020 by CodysGameRoom

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Uhh, our fellow human beings are the ones who are saying that. The ones we are being disrespected.

Well nowadays everyone is offended by everything so the goal is really open to shoot the ball in. But i'm talking from the players perspective and intentions. I think it's no more or less disrespecting than Western movies don't focus on a cattle rancher living an uneventful existence, because noone wants to watch that dull shit. So we romanticize in shit we do find exciting just like the kids themselves.

[VegHead | 127]

4 minutes ago, cartman said:

Again, who says "we're not respecting our fellow human beings"? Yeah they did wipe out/subjugate those cultures (the people themselves mostly died off disease if i don't remember inaccurately, but ok) but that isn't really the point. Again with the Vikings: when they raided those monestaries on the outskirts of England and killed off all the priests. But nobody really lives that aspect, they romanticize the warriors. The kids romanticize the warriors too: the looks, the clothes, the fucking calling thing you do while tapping the hand over the mouth. We can recognize the bad aspects and have playtime they are not mutually exclusive.

The difference between the example of the Vikings and the Indians is where the romanticizing comes from.  In the Vikings example, it largely comes from within cultures born of European decent; they are celebrating their own culture, and yes, romanticizing the past.  That's very human and it's also one way we deal with the tragedies of history.  I see no problem with that.  In the Indians example, though, it largely comes from the victors reenacting their dominance and near-genocide of a continent of people.  The Indians didn't win, the cowboys did.  Also, to be clear, I am not trying to shame kids here.  They are merely copying what they see the greater culture do, and that's where my criticism is leveled.  Because we, as intelligent and rational adults can recognize that previous generations of Americans were horrible to the Native Americans, we should not be creating stories and toys and perpetuate a harmful or disrespectful narrative.  When we recognize the faults of something and that there are more bad aspects than good aspects, we can stop making things for our kids that further ignorance.  Like I stated previously, there are plenty of play options we can encourage our kids in that don't mimic historically tragic events.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

1 minute ago, cartman said:

Well nowadays everyone is offended by everything so the goal is really open to shoot the ball in. But i'm talking from the players perspective and intentions. I think it's no more or less disrespecting than Western movies don't focus on a cattle rancher living an uneventful existence, because noone wants to watch that dull shit. So we romanticize in shit we do find exciting just like the kids themselves.

I mean it's up to adults to use their brains and separate fiction from reality. I'm able to watch Django Unchained, enjoy it, and then not go around using the n word. I'd hope to hell that most adults can tell the difference. 

Also, it's not up to you or me what other people get offended by. It's not our call. All we can do is try to be mindful, have common decency, and try not to say things or act in a way that might upset those around us. It's not that complicated. And if people don't care to do that, if people don't care to be concerned with the fact that what they do or say might offend someone, then, those people, are shitty people. 

[Tulpa | 3,492]

11 minutes ago, cartman said:

Well nowadays everyone is offended by everything so the goal is really open to shoot the ball in. But i'm talking from the players perspective and intentions. I think it's no more or less disrespecting than Western movies don't focus on a cattle rancher living an uneventful existence, because noone wants to watch that dull shit. So we romanticize in shit we do find exciting just like the kids themselves.

No one is saying that you have to resign yourself to boring stories. Just that you have to be mindful of how portrayals come across.

You can have native American characters, but portrayals of them as mindless savages (or even the noble savage stereotype) is crass to a group of people that are still around. Don't condense a complex group of people into cliche.

[cartman | 195]

Just now, epiclotus said:

The difference between the example of the Vikings and the Indians is where the romanticizing comes from.  In the Vikings example, it largely comes from within cultures born of European decent; they are celebrating their own culture, and yes, romanticizing the past.  That's very human and it's also one way we deal with the tragedies of history.  I see no problem with that.  In the Indians example, though, it largely comes from the victors reenacting their dominance and near-genocide of a continent of people.  The Indians didn't win, the cowboys did.  Also, to be clear, I am not trying to shame kids here.  They are merely copying what they see the greater culture do, and that's where my criticism is leveled.  Because we, as intelligent and rational adults can recognize that previous generations of Americans were horrible to the Native Americans, we should not be creating stories and toys and perpetuate a harmful or disrespectful narrative.  When we recognize the faults of something and that there are more bad aspects than good aspects, we can stop making things for our kids that further ignorance.  Like I stated previously, there are plenty of play options we can encourage our kids in that don't mimic historically tragic events.

So if a white kid plays the cowboy that may have been involved in the subjugation it becomes ok but not if he plays the part of the underdog recieving - just because he happens to be white? How does this make sense? And also Indians themselves were in a constant state of war raiding and killing each other even before the euros ever arrived so what do you make of that? Does it mean that you're supporting one tribes subjugation over others if you cosplay an Indian?

If you play war from real groups someone usually didn't win yeah but that is still beside the point. And you can make the Indians win for that matter if you want to play that way because it's a fucking game. 

There's nothing mutually exclusive between recognizing wrongdoings and fictionalizing the participants.

 

 

[Lincoln | 230]

15 hours ago, Link said:

I mean, it’s been a long time since the KKK endorsed anybody in an election.

Didn't David Duke endorse Trump in 2016? And Trump didn't bother to distance himself from it?

[VegHead | 127]

4 minutes ago, cartman said:

So if a white kid plays the cowboy that may have been involved in the subjugation it becomes ok but not if he plays the part of the underdog recieving - just because he happens to be white? How does this make sense?

Yes, just because he's white.  It makes sense because we should be kind to other people.  I say kindness includes the children of the victors not reenacting part of the utter destruction of another culture.  

Quote

And also Indians themselves were in a constant state of war raiding and killing each other even before the euros ever arrived so what do you make of that?

I think that's terrible, but the wrong acts of one group do not excuse the wrong acts of another.  I can condemn Indians killing each other and also condemn Europeans killing Indians without being contradictory.  

Quote

Does it mean that you're supporting one tribes subjugation over others if you cosplay an Indian?

I wouldn't recommend cosplaying an Indian.  

Quote

And you can make the Indians win for that matter if you want to play that way because it's a [...] game. 

Games are not trivial things, though.  Games are expressions of cultural values, and are crafted out of the mores of society.  There's a reason war games are both so prevalent and popular in American culture because we have been and continue to be a very aggressive culture.  Play teaches our children that.  Yet, I think there are better ways to teach them games of winners and losers.  Let me shift focus slightly with a different example:

Cops and robbers.  I mentioned earlier that was a game I saw no problem with.  Cop is the good guy, robber is the bad guy.  Cop is meant to win, and the game teaches a little something about right and wrong.  Now, this assumes two kids of the same race playing the game.  Give a white kid the role of cop and a black kid the role of robber, and the game becomes something different in a cultural context.  The kids may not know the difference, and that is just fine, but any adult observing should notice how the game reflects real world issues of systemic racism by police against the black community.  Swap the roles; give the black kid the role of the cop and the white kid the robber.  What reaction does that dynamic invoke in an adult when the power role is reversed?  

Now, do I think you should stop a kid and explain the whole world to them every time they play?  Of course not, that's ridiculous.  It does provide for opportunities to teach a kid later on, though, about how people of different races have been treated by each other, even in today's world.  

Also, I have nothing against games that mimic violence provided that such is not the focus of the game.  If kids want to play cops and robbers, and play act it with toy money and toy guns, I actually have nothing against that because real life encounters like those often require violence to stop and there is a moral lesson underlying it.  I have a different feeling if kids are playing axe-murderer, and the goal is pretending to kill all your friends as the victims.  There is no redeeming quality to that game.  That would be where I, as a teacher or parent, would step in and correct their behavior.

[cartman | 195]

20 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

No one is saying that you have to resign yourself to boring stories. Just that you have to be mindful of how portrayals come across.

You can have native American characters, but portrayals of them as mindless savages (or even the noble savage stereotype) is crass to a group of people that are still around. Don't condense a complex group of people into cliche.

Yeah i don't know man. Multi-dimensional characters are usually better than those that aren't and some have a gripe with historical inaccuracy while others don't. I think ultimately people should have the right to create and to be distasteful and that those who aren't down with it contain with being displeased. It's really a lesser evil compared to everyone jumping into everyone elses shit and everyone getting restricted.

[Tulpa | 3,492]

19 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yeah i don't know man. Multi-dimensional characters are usually better than those that aren't and some have a gripe with historical inaccuracy while others don't. I think ultimately people should have the right to create and to be distasteful and that those who aren't down with it contain with being displeased. It's really a lesser evil compared to everyone jumping into everyone elses shit and everyone getting restricted.

No one is being restricted. Our first amendment says you can post the most distasteful, offensive shit (short of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or sedition, which are specific types of speech that actually do cause immediate harm.) And the government will not restrict you from doing that.

However, others who find your stuff distasteful have the right to speak out against it. They even have the right to organize boycotts. Companies that publish or produce that are free to not do business with you, even if it's in response to those boycotts or people getting offended.

Because that is what a free society is.

You're not immune to other people speaking their mind. You can't just post something and expect not to have some kind of response. It might be indifference, it might be someone praising you, it might be someone jumping your shit.

You have to deal with it. That's what freedom of speech is.

If you post a pic of yourself in black face, and someone puts up an op-ed that say's you're being racist, and suddenly everyone doesn't want anything to do with you, that's the bed you made.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Tulpa

[VegHead | 127]

9 minutes ago, cartman said:

I think ultimately people should have the right to create and to be distasteful and that those who aren't down with it contain with being displeased. It's really a lesser evil compared to everyone jumping into everyone elses shit and everyone getting restricted.

What you are referring to here is the idea of freedom from consequences.  People do have the right to create distasteful things, but it is also that same right which gives other people the ability to speak out at their displeasure.  The First Amendment applies to government restrictions on speech, not on cultural backlash to unpopular expressions.  There's a big difference between me saying what should not be done, and the government saying what cannot be done.  Cultural pressure to conform is actually a good thing to a certain extent, although there is certainly vast room for abuse.  

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

27 minutes ago, cartman said:

I think ultimately people should have the right to create and to be distasteful and that those who aren't down with it contain with being displeased.

They absolutely do have the right do create and be distasteful. That's free speech. But their actions come with consequences.

Conversely, those who aren't down with it should NOT contain being displeased. That suggestion is oppressive, immoral, and violating of free speech and free thinking ideas.

Edit: Should have read Tulpa and Epiclotus' response first, lol.

Edited February 21, 2020 by CodysGameRoom

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

24 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yeah i don't know man. Multi-dimensional characters are usually better than those that aren't and some have a gripe with historical inaccuracy while others don't. I think ultimately people should have the right to create and to be distasteful and that those who aren't down with it contain with being displeased. It's really a lesser evil compared to everyone jumping into everyone elses shit and everyone getting restricted.

Sound like how I feel about racism, and gay marriage. If you dont like someone because of their race, thats fine. Write about it your journal, or seethe in your front room about gays getting married. 
 

But as soon as you start affecting other people, Or as soon as the state is involved, thats another story. 

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, epiclotus said:

Yes, just because he's white.  It makes sense because we should be kind to other people.  I say kindness includes the children of the victors not reenacting part of the utter destruction of another culture.  

I think that's terrible, but the wrong acts of one group do not excuse the wrong acts of another.  I can condemn Indians killing each other and also condemn Europeans killing Indians without being contradictory.  

I wouldn't recommend cosplaying an Indian.  

Games are not trivial things, though.  Games are expressions of cultural values, and are crafted out of the mores of society.  There's a reason war games are both so prevalent and popular in American culture because we have been and continue to be a very aggressive culture.  Play teaches our children that.  Yet, I think there are better ways to teach them games of winners and losers.  Let me shift focus slightly with a different example:

Cops and robbers.  I mentioned earlier that was a game I saw no problem with.  Cop is the good guy, robber is the bad guy.  Cop is meant to win, and the game teaches a little something about right and wrong.  Now, this assumes two kids of the same race playing the game.  Give a white kid the role of cop and a black kid the role of robber, and the game becomes something different in a cultural context.  The kids may not know the difference, and that is just fine, but any adult observing should notice how the game reflects real world issues of systemic racism by police against the black community.  Swap the roles; give the black kid the role of the cop and the white kid the robber.  What reaction does that dynamic invoke in an adult when the power role is reversed?  

Now, do I think you should stop a kid and explain the whole world to them every time they play?  Of course not, that's ridiculous.  It does provide for opportunities to teach a kid later on, though, about how people of different races have been treated by each other, even in today's world.  

Also, I have nothing against games that mimic violence provided that such is not the focus of the game.  If kids want to play cops and robbers, and play act it with toy money and toy guns, I actually have nothing against that because real life encounters like those often require violence to stop and there is a moral lesson underlying it.  I have a different feeling if kids are playing axe-murderer, and the goal is pretending to kill all your friends as the victims.  There is no redeeming quality to that game.  That would be where I, as a teacher or parent, would step in and correct their behavior.

But you're promoting cultural and racial segregation then. If someone is in the wrong and the springing issue is that he's white, you're actively segregating people and interaction. And when the results manifest you've ultimately created more of the shit you wanted to prevent not less of it. 

Games are not trivial things? Where is the line drawn? Once you equate artistic creation with behaviour and start problematising then it's really a free-for-all... you can start infringing on just about anything. Remember the outcry against violence in movies and games that had much bigger tractions some decades ago? A lot of things we have today we wouldn't be having if they succeeded. War games are very prevalent everywhere i would say i'm not so sure American kids play it more than Swedish. We played it when i grew up here and i had toy guns and all. But America does have a gun problem i would agree on that.

What becomes different if the white kid is the cop instead of the black? Is a white cop racist for chasing a black robber? If a crime has been committed the police is called in right. There might be some bias though where black people get larger sentences than whites just as women fare better than men. But blacks have a subculture of streetgangs that account for a lot of police interactions. If there is shitty police behaviour or unintended wrongdoing takes place it's more likely to take place in places with more crime´etc. Different problems intermingle with each other.

 

[cartman | 195]

15 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Sound like how I feel about racism, and gay marriage. If you dont like someone because of their race, thats fine. Write about it your journal, or seethe in your front room about gays getting married. 
 

But as soon as you start affecting other people, Or as soon as the state is involved, thats another story. 

Yeah that's how i see it aswell.

[cartman | 195]

35 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

No one is being restricted. Our first amendment says you can post the most distasteful, offensive shit (short of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or sedition, which are specific types of speech that actually do cause immediate harm.) And the government will not restrict you from doing that.

However, others who find your stuff distasteful have the right to speak out against it. They even have the right to organize boycotts. Companies that publish or produce that are free to not do business with you, even if it's in response to those boycotts or people getting offended.

Because that is what a free society is.

You're not immune to other people speaking their mind. You can't just post something and expect not to have some kind of response. It might be indifference, it might be someone praising you, it might be someone jumping your shit.

You have to deal with it. That's what freedom of speech is.

If you post a pic of yourself in black face, and someone puts up an op-ed that say's you're being racist, and suddenly everyone doesn't want anything to do with you, that's the bed you made.

It's just that people can gain traction so easily for their displeasures that the originator tends to kowtow rather than uphold any kind of principle. But yes technically speaking you're still right. I saw Kinder retract a toy where the eggman held three balloons and each had a K so it spelled out KKK and this bitch somewhere out there raised a stink over it she was getting offended. There's just so much fuckery going on that in practise you don't really have much free speech to speak of.

Edited February 21, 2020 by cartman

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

5 minutes ago, cartman said:

I saw Kinder retract a toy where the eggman held three balloons and each had a K so it spelled out KKK and this bitch somewhere out there raised a stink over it she was getting offended.

Yea I mean they probably shouldn't make a childs toy with 'KKK' on it.

[Tulpa | 3,492]

9 minutes ago, cartman said:

It's just that people can gain traction so easily for their displeasures that the originator tends to kowtow rather than uphold any kind of principle.

That's on the originator. They can stand their ground or they can back down. Everyone has to make a decision in a free society. It may not be the decision you like, but that's how it goes.

I will say that if you're standing on principle to wear black face or dress up as an indian chief when you're not native American, you're going to reap what you sow.

9 minutes ago, cartman said:

 I saw Kinder retract a toy where the eggman held three balloons and each had a K so it spelled out KKK and this bitch somewhere out there raised a stink over it she was getting offended. There's just so much fuckery going on that in practise you don't really have much free speech to speak of.

Oh, please. Kinder is a company, right? They made a business decision.

They could have kept on producing that eggman and had decreased sales across the line, or remove the one offending item and keep doing what they were doing. No one forced them, they made a business decision to remove it.

Companies make business decisions all the time. Sometimes it's mundane, product x doesn't sell. Sometimes it's we made something that was accidentally offensive. We removed it.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

That's on the originator. They can stand their ground or they can back down. Everyone has to make a decision in a free society. It may not be the decision you like, but that's how it goes.

 

Oh, please. Kinder is a company, right? They made a business decision.

They could have kept on producing that eggman and had decreased sales across the line, or remove the one offending item and keep doing what they were doing. No one forced them, they made a business decision to remove it.

 

Yeah all in theory. But in practise you really don't have much leeway when the mob brands you as an evil-doer. I mean you can stand your ground but your employer sacks you. Yes i know… you can say he has the right to to that or not take your business. But in practise there's a limit.

Yes Kinder is a company and they made the decision. So what? Yes they could've and should've kept producing in. But the whole thing is a symptom of a grander sickness that's what i was trying to say.

[cartman | 195]