Race baiting media at it again...

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How is it not the same? I dont accept that, at all.

I see what you're saying and I understand what Ushgarak is saying.

It's just that, people put emphasis on different things. Some people think historical context is key to putting things into perspective for why something might be offensive to some. Some people think that intention (like you) is 100% paramount in determining whether or not something is racist.

Personally, I would not be offended by a white man wearing a "White" tattoo. But if I were an older black man, at 60+ years of age, I'd probably be justifiably afraid of him. I have had the pleasure of working with many older black people: it's not the ****ing same for them, dude. Some of them got their asses beaten for being black in the wrong place. They experienced Jim Crow or the vestiges of Jim Crow as youth. They had to walk on certain sides of the street. They were treated as subhuman.

If you have an older black man or woman in your life that you consider a friend, sit down with them, talk to them. Ask them about the racism in the past that they experienced. And when they break down and start crying, I fully expect you to be looking at those falling tears through your own blurry vision. It's not about feeling white-guilt. It is about understanding another human's experience. Seeing why it might be frightening for someone to see those kinds of tattoos.

I don't want to get too serious. Alright, peace, dude.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I think this whole racial thing is made into a story by PC bias whiners if you ask me.

That was the story, it was simple and should have gone nowhere since it's obvious what she did was the smart and potentially non-offensive move.

The people who are whining are the ones bringing up double-standards and race inequality, while ignoring historical context.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The topic of race is an important one, I don't think every article on it is race baiting.

Yeah, but any discussion of race where people make sweeping generalizations? Is bullshit and helps nobody.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As noted, that's because you are totally blind to historical and cultural nuance and don't want to accept anything outside of your narrow field of view.

You don't even want to begin to engage with the wider cultural argument- you think everything can be argued from a blank slate and then use that as a weapon to say people are being unfair on whites by applying double standards.

But that whole situation is a monstrously immoral fake- it's [b]not a blank canvas we are starting from. It's a culture and history where white power has been nothing but evil and oppressive- a sign of evil and an obstacle in the struggle for civilization, where black power has been a fight against oppression, and the civil rights movement a huge step forward in US civilization.

It is, really, monstrous to try and argue the whole thing starting with the assumption that all cultural expressions are even and neutral, because by doing so you are just cutting out all of the generations of pain and suffering- up to this very day- that minorities have had to suffer that make their messages fundamentally different to a white man expressing the same for his culture. I wish to god it WAS a blank slate everyone was working from, but it's not, and it's never going to be one whilst people are in such denial about it.

So, as I stated on the first page- I would be wary of a black person with 'black' tattoed on them because I dislike tribalism, BUT I would not assume it was racist in the same way I would- very reasonably- with a white person sporting one that says 'white'. That is a judgement based on intelligent considerations of people, culture, and history, and that is what you need for proper, intelligent consideration of the situation. [/B]

Let me ask this to clarify, are you saying that a black person that has a tattoo that said "black or african" is tribal. But a white person with "white" is automatically racist? I can see your point, but then we are guilty of generalizing.

Like me saying "All Muslims and are evil"

When in fact its "Extremists and Jihadist"

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think 'neither can prove' is a misdirection also. I think not only is the culture/history argument a very reasonable and well-backed position, I also think it is one that has gained widespread cultural acceptance.

And the thread long ago became focussed on the 'equal treatment' part of the argument. That's a valid debate.

It's a valid debate when done correctly. But it hasn't been done correctly by either side. You get that, yes? I don't care how reasonable or well backed you feel you are, you outright generalized an entire group of people without batting an eye.

Then I'm assuming you are not going to reply with a "I shouldn't of done that" but with a defense of your generalizations.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Clinton campaign deletes photo after controversial tattoo spotted"

That was the story, it was simple and should have gone nowhere since it's obvious what she did was the smart and potentially non-offensive move.

The people who are whining are the ones bringing up double-standards and race inequality, while ignoring historical context.

Honestly in this case, I really don't care what she did, she shook some random cannon fodders hand. This story was stupid. I just like cutting through PC bias.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's a valid debate when done correctly. But it hasn't been done correctly by either side. You get that, yes? I don't care how reasonable or well backed you feel you are, you outright generalized an entire group of people without batting an eye.

Then I'm assuming you are not going to reply with a "I shouldn't of done that" but with a defense of your generalizations.

There was no generalization in the sense that you mean it- as mentioned many times, this is reasonable inference based in history. You trying to use a pejorative sense of 'generalization' is again misdirection- as is your last comment in that post.

Sorry, but my argument is pretty sound and I have constantly argued it with reasonable backing and assertion. You are doing nothing of the kind. We do not equate.

Nobody should care what Hilary did, because that is bullshit. She doesn't even know this person, it was some random guy whose hand she shook. They act like they found her in bed with the guy or found her emailing him or giving him money.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How is it not the same? I dont accept that, at all.

It is the same,TI. Just ignore all these people with their double standard arguments. For all we know "White" could've been his last name. But even if it meant he was proud of "being white" there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that except to anyone who is truly racist.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There was no generalization in the sense that you mean it- as mentioned many times, this is reasonable inference based in history. You trying to use a pejorative sense of 'generalization' is again misdirection- as is your last comment in that post.

Sorry, but my argument is pretty sound and I have constantly argued it with reasonable backing and assertion. You are doing nothing of the kind. We do not equate.

So again, you can generalize people and it's cool, because history is on your side? Gotcha.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Let me ask this to clarify, are you saying that a black person that has a tattoo that said "black or african" is tribal. But a white person with "white" is automatically racist? I can see your point, but then we are guilty of generalizing.

Like me saying "All Muslims and are evil"

When in fact its "Extremists and Jihadist"

It's tribal either way- as in, associating with your genetic group rather than by your values or beliefs, which I dislike in general.

But, as explained painstakingly above, indeed yes, the 'white' one is reasonably seen an appeal to racism because white power groups have been about oppressive racism whilst black power groups have been about social advancement- on the whole. In a different country where the roles were reversed, the opposite may apply.

It is absolutely nothing like the generalisations you mention at all.

I used the swastika example earlier because- as is often brought out in debate- it is in origin an ancient religious symbol of various meanings, But that's totally irrelevant because, when born by white men, whatever original meaning it may have had is swamped by the overwhelming history of it being an emblem for race hate. No amount of a man saying "But I am using it in its 'original' sense" actually changes that- that is a culturally inept argument.

Likewise, trying to argue the possibility of an innocent explanation for a 'white' tattoo on a white man is missing the point. It's too culturally loaded of a statement to ignore.

And again, no-one is saying this man should be shot for it- just that it is reasonable to disassociate from someone making such a culturally insensitive statement.

Originally posted by Surtur
So again, you can generalize people and it's cool, because history is on your side? Gotcha.

You know- the pettiness of your comment there aside- history being on my side is actually a valid foundation for this argument.

But that is BULLSHIT. So a person can't do something because other mother****ers were rotten and ruined it?

And history being on your side isn't a valid point, because history doesn't tell you that every single person with a tatoo like this is racist.

So you can use the past to make sweeping generalizations, is what it comes down to. If someone disagrees they are using "misdirection" or "just don't get it".

Sorry, I edited that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see what you're saying and I understand what Ushgarak is saying.

It's just that, people put emphasis on different things. Some people think historical context is key to putting things into perspective for why something might be offensive to some. Some people think that intention (like you) is 100% paramount in determining whether or not something is racist.

Personally, I would not be offended by a white man wearing a "White" tattoo. But if I were an older black man, at 60+ years of age, I'd probably be justifiably afraid of him. I have had the pleasure of working with many older black people: it's not the ****ing same for them, dude. Some of them got their asses beaten for being black in the wrong place. They experienced Jim Crow or the vestiges of Jim Crow as youth. They had to walk on certain sides of the street. They were treated as subhuman.

If you have an older black man or woman in your life that you consider a friend, sit down with them, talk to them. Ask them about the racism in the past that they experienced. And when they break down and start crying, I fully expect you to be looking at those falling tears through your own blurry vision. It's not about feeling white-guilt. It is about understanding another human's experience. Seeing why it might be frightening for someone to see those kinds of tattoos.

I don't want to get too serious. Alright, peace, dude.

I get it. Now hear me out

I am hoping this new age, of all races, especially black and white can forget the past and move on. It could be done, I truly believe that. But I think racial agitators like George Soros and other evil masterminds pit us against each other.

Also lets not forget!!!!!!!!

It was the elite back then who owned slaves. So we could look back into the Rockafeller, JP Morgon, Bush's ancestors and find their family in fact owned slaves. So while the media and the elite pit the common people agains teach other over race, it was them asshats who actually owned slaves.

I am third generation greek, I still have relatives in Greece, I know we didn't own any black slaves. And I am sure that is how it is for many common people. Slave ownership is what made the family's rich, and many are still wealthy off it!

Look at Ben Affleck, his grandfather made the family wealth off slave ownership. Why is no one attacking him here or in the media for long!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/ben-affleck-slave-owner-censored-family-tree-sony-article-1.2189594

Cheers

Originally posted by Surtur
But that is BULLSHIT. So a person can't do something because other mother****ers were rotten and ruined it?

And history being on your side isn't a valid point, because history doesn't tell you that every single person with a tatoo like this is racist.

I honestly just think you are commenting in bad faith now rather than trying to understand what is being said. Again a shame- in short, neither of the two things you just said actually relates to an appreciation of my argument. You're close with the 'ruined it' comment (because yes, some things do get ruined- because you have to appreciate the effect of messages on others, not just yourself), but phrased in that way is again missing the point.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I get it. Now hear me out

I am hoping this new age, of all races, especially black and white can forget the past and move on. It could be done, I truly believe that. But I think racial agitators like George Soros and other evil masterminds pit us against each other.

Just the replies in this topic alone show that if we ever do forget the past and move on..it sure as shit won't be in our lifetime..or the lifetime or your kids..or probably their kids either. Not until this silly "different standards for different races" is gone.

But once again we have indeed been duped and race baited. It's impossible to show this guy was racist based off this tatoo. This is no issue that can be solved via discussion, because neither side will budge. Those who think it is racist just focus on past atrocities to justify their belief, those that don't automatically jump there want to give people the benefit of the doubt in this day and age. One step forward, two steps back.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's tribal either way- as in, associating with your genetic group rather than by your values or beliefs, which I dislike in general.

But, as explained painstakingly above, indeed yes, the 'white' one is reasonably seen an appeal to racism because white power groups have been about oppressive racism whilst black power groups have been about social advancement- on the whole. In a different country where the roles were reversed, the opposite may apply.

It is absolutely nothing like the generalisations you mention at all.

I used the swastika example earlier because- as is often brought out in debate- it is in origin an ancient religious symbol of various meanings, But that's totally irrelevant because, when born by white men, whatever original meaning it may have had is swamped by the overwhelming history of it being an emblem for race hate. No amount of a man saying "But I am using it in its 'original' sense" actually changes that- that is a culturally inept argument.

Likewise, trying to argue the possibility of an innocent explanation for a 'white' tattoo on a white man is missing the point. It's too culturally loaded of a statement to ignore.

And again, no-one is saying this man should be shot for it- just that it is reasonable to disassociate from someone making such a culturally insensitive statement.

Im down to forget about the tattoo's as its inconsequential overall as its free will to mark yourself how you please, its just a way to get us arguing, read my comment to DDM if you really want to have a debate on the issue of the overall racial problem

Originally posted by Surtur
Just the replies in this topic alone show that if we ever do forget the past and move on..it sure as shit won't be in our lifetime..or the lifetime or your kids..or probably their kids either. Not until this silly "different standards for different races" is gone.

You are right in one sense- it won't be even until that is gone. But a. it is not silly and b. it is not the cause- it is a symptom. It won't go until the reasons behind it have gone. Those won;t go until people on all sides of the cultural divide truly commit to equality, and that will involve an appreciation of the argument being made here.

Ignoring that arguments perpetuates racist sentiment.

It;s the same with this confederate flag thing. I know a lot of people WANT it only to represent States' rights and the like- but that's just not the way it is. It is taken as representing race hatred; the flag that flew over the people pouring fire into the Crater yelling "Take the white man, kill the ******".

And so as a symbol, this has to be accepted; by ignoring its cultural meaning to black people, the racial gulf is widened.

One day, we can indeed all work from the blank slate. But that's a LONG way off, and a lot of people will have to change their values.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just the replies in this topic alone show that if we ever do forget the past and move on..it sure as shit won't be in our lifetime..or the lifetime or your kids..or probably their kids either. Not until this silly "different standards for different races" is gone.

But once again we have indeed been duped and race baited. It's impossible to show this guy was racist based off this tatoo. This is no issue that can be solved via discussion, because neither side will budge. Those who think it is racist just focus on past atrocities to justify their belief, those that don't automatically jump there want to give people the benefit of the doubt in this day and age. One step forward, two steps back.

Yes this front line common cannon fodder with a "white" tattoo is absolutely trivial compared to the god damn problems we face. It was the elite who owned the slaves yet the common people are the ones who have to deal with those consequences!

I'm sick and tired of the lies.