Apparently, now it's considered offensive and/or racist to just have the word "white" tattooed on your body. The liberal race-baiting media can't resist any chance to get people riled up over anything related to race by printing stories like this trash:
"Controversial tattoo". LMAO. Of course, I'm sure if a black guy had been spotted with a tattoo that said "Black" then nobody would be saying a phucking thing.
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
Let's be clear about what's happening here- no-one is banning such a tattoo or saying the guy should be put away or the like.
What they ARE saying is that people might not want to be associated with someone sporting such a tattoo, and judging someone by how they express themselves is perfectly legitimate. I think it very reasonable to ask why someone would have a tattoo and what it may symbolise; I am hard-pressed to think of reasons that are not effectively racist and hence this is not something the Clinton campaign would want to associate with.
Freedom of expression is not freedom from judgement.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Jul 8th, 2015 at 04:15 PM
But honest question: do you feel a black man with the word "black" or "african" tatooed on his arm would receive the exact same amount of backlash for it? Would such a person be automatically labeled a black supremacist?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
A black man with the word "black" tattooed on him, is not the same as a white man with the word "white". These have completely different contexts and disregarding them will lead you to misunderstand the situation.
That being said, there'd likely be a different kind of backlash (for example remember the FOX News outrage over the rapper Common in the White House)
It wouldn't make them my person of the year because I dislike tribalism in general- however, there is a giant difference between the oppressor and the oppressed in that sort of cultural self-identity so I would judge it differently.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
So why is a white guy doing it not the same as a black guy? Just because one group was more oppressed?
Once again we have an instance of "it is okay for one race to do something, but not another".
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
That's exactly what it is, yes- the problem is that you aren't paying any heed to the cultural nuances that make it that way; you're simply seeing it as straight out unfairness. It is not. The simple truth is that the two expressions have different meanings- you are not comparing like for like.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Ush has hit on it the dynamic of oppressor and oppressed is different. Pride in whiteness has an extensive history of racism and oppression. Blackness in America has been devalued and degraded for years, so someone expressing their pride in it is an attempt to regain a respect that is denied to them. White people are not a marginalised group, so talking about white pride sends a different message.
But that is utterly silly to me though. So you can't take pride in being white because white people oppressed black people. But you can take pride in being black because you were oppressed.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
See you just boiling it down to 'take pride in' is where you are over-simplifying the matter. I can see why you think it is utterly silly but I am afraid the only solution here is to take a much wider look at how expressing yourself as part of a genetic culture like that is something that has a meaning that is not based on a blank slate but instead takes place in historical and social context.
It's possible for a black person to sport such a tattoo based on purely racist beliefs- and like I said, it would make me wary. But it's very possible for it instead to be based on solidarity born of oppression. As I said originally, I am hard-pressed to think of a positive spin on a white pride tattoo.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
But you understand the context, yes?
If you see a white person that has white tattoed on their body you are asking yourself why they felt the need to put that on their body, why someone whose race faces absolutely no obstacles is obsessed enough with his race to tattoo it on themselves (999/1000 it's a racist person, perhaps a nazi or a KKK member).
A black person is confronted with their race and how their race is an obstacle in a predominantly white society constantly. So them writing "black" on their body doesn't mean they hate white people necessarily, just that they do not accept the narrative of black people as bad.
There is the matter that 'White Pride' groups like the KKK, Stormfront, and similar, tend to be completely horrible people, while the same can't be said in reverse.
There's a term, 'punching down.' When someone is down to begin with, doing something to help build up is, generally, just moving closer to a level playing field. When one's already on top, doing things to elevate the group even higher tends to be more about disadvantaging everyone else, which... well, not so good.
And there's another angle: White people hardly need special pride groups because whiteness is celebrated everywhere. They're the default. The standards of beauty are white models and white actors. Movies and TV have white people disproportionately in the heroic roles. Most celebrated figures in history are white.
There doesn't need to be any special white-pride separate from anything because the mainstream culture is already a predominantly white one.
If it is possible for a tatoo on a black man to be based on solidarity then why isn't it possible for the white one to be? Just because white supremacists exist doesn't mean everyone who has pride is in that group.
You are basically saying because white hate groups exist that nobody could take pride in it.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I am unaware of any historical or social context that requires such an expression of solidarity- which is a response to oppression. So, as Bardock says, that pretty much just leaves racism.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
But this is a sweeping generalization. The same type that people like blacks, latino's, and others hate when it is applied to them. Why is it okay to generalize one group and not another?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Just on this point- yes indeed; people often mistake 'freedom to express' with 'immunity to criticism'. "It's my opinion" is a defence to someone telling you you are not allowed to talk, but it's an irrelevant comment to someone telling you that you are wrong. If you are unable or unwilling to justify your opinion, then it will be judged accordingly.
Of course, there is a reversal here too- judgement has no implicit power unless it too can be rationally backed. Hence, being offended at someone's expression is not in of itself of any significance except to yourself. Unless the offence can be connected to some genuine wider issue, it's all just talk.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
So how the hell can this country ever overcome racism when we hold different races to different standards? Based on how *some* members of that race behave.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 8th, 2015 04:01 PM
