Race baiting media at it again...

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:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/08/clinton-campaign-deletes-photo-after-controversial-tattoo-spotte/21206627

"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.

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.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Freedom of expression is not freedom from judgement.

I love this sentiment, because it responds to so much out there these days.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

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.

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

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.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just because white supremacists exist doesn't mean everyone who has pride is in that group.

It pretty much does mean that every time.

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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It pretty much does mean that every time.

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?

Originally posted by Digi
I love this sentiment, because it responds to so much out there these days.

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.

Originally posted by Surtur
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?

'Sweeping generalization' is only a relevant criticism if it distorts the truth, which I don't think it does here.

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.