Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dsarker]

Essay about "black hipsters."

White rappers and issues of appropriation.

An analysis of Avatar in context of race.

Probably more on this stuff later.  Right now, it's time for Chrono Cross.


Screw it, I like this entire blog.  Go read and make merry.

So let me tell a story.
I had this class in high school, it was an advance course called "computers networking and electronics." It took up half the day so not many people went in for it, it was the best class I've ever taken in my life... But that's beside the point.
It was part of this whole collaborative effort by a whole bunch of school districts where they'd ferry people from other schools to come take classes over in ours. Now some of those school districts were heavily black, so out of 8 of us there were 3 black kids... Actually one of them came from a very white school but all of this is beside the point again.
So one day back in 2008 I walk in to the class and they're talking about the elections and how it's a big deal that the next president could be black.
Me: Why does this matter?
Guy A: Well he's going to be black
Me: ... So? Why is everyone making such a big deal?
Guy B: Well think of it this way, what would you say if you had a black British Prime Minister? You've never had one of those right? Well yeah, what would you say?
Me: Ermmm, good for him? I hope he's a good one?
Guy A: You wouldn't get it you're British.

Point is, I really wish people wouldn't make such a big deal over this. When people stop thinking about racism all the time it'll cease being a problem.

Let me tell you another story.
Way back when the old Celtic druids of yore  used to revere red hair, and redheads usually got sent off to become druids.
When the Romans came and conquered the land, they tried to drive out the old Celtic practices, and one of the things they did was persecute redheads with a ferocity.
To this day there's still the lingering traces of a prejudice towards redheads. I remember once getting upset when my aunt told me that red hair was a sign of bad breeding (she was kidding but I didn't really realize it at the time). There is also the old saying "beat it like a red headed step child."
This naturally gives me and my brother the right to greet each other in the streets by shouting "WHO'S MY GINGER!? You my ginger."
'cus it's our word. And nobody gives a fuck about the red hair thing.

I am in full agreement with you on this. It's the same with gender and stuff.

Heh... Reminds me of a time when I was like twelve or something. Apparently, so it happens, I was on a school camp. Anyway, it was finished, and I'd just come back. Now, I don't remember much of this, so this is according to my mother.

I was talking with a white guy and an indian (I think?) while waiting to be picked up. Talked about it in the car home, and I mentioned one of them. Now apparently, my mother asked who it was, and I replied "Oh, the one with the big backpack."

/end story I can't really remember

[Vector]

. . .

I wouldn't call it post-gender equality, either.

[Dsarker]

Not saying it IS. But the idea that people are getting is that to be equal, we have to have an equal split of minorities. We have to have a black president to show that we're not racist, we have to have a female prime minister to show we're not racist. What we should be doing is not just enforcing an equal spread. We should be enforcing equal opportunities, such that when the market hires based on talent, we get less of a purely white anglo saxon protestant group.

[Truean]

Not saying it IS. But the idea that people are getting is that to be equal, we have to have an equal split of minorities. We have to have a black president to show that we're not racist, we have to have a female prime minister to show we're not racist. What we should be doing is not just enforcing an equal spread. We should be enforcing equal opportunities, such that when the market hires based on talent, we get less of a purely white anglo saxon protestant group.

Meh, it's largely about attitudes and people digging their heads out of their asses. It's funny, I know a lovely black woman who accepts me the way I am (trans, liking men....). When we hang out, we're cordial and don't really care, though due to society being composed of jerks, I have to live mostly as a boy [sigh]. We've gotten looks from people who try not to show they are giving them. The only explanation we can come up with is that people think we are a couple and they stare.... This does not happen when she and her husband, who is also black are out. It does not happen when she is with girlfriends who are white or some other color.

We think it's a mixture of sad and hilarious, cause though I wear a good mask, the idea of me with a woman is ridiculous. Gender and race screwed up reactions....

[G-Flex]

Not saying it IS. But the idea that people are getting is that to be equal, we have to have an equal split of minorities. We have to have a black president to show that we're not racist, we have to have a female prime minister to show we're not racist.

No, we need to prove that black presidents and female prime ministers are possible, and are as likely as they should be given their proportion within the population. If 20% of a population is black, then in a society without racism, so should 20% of the presidents, CEOs, dock workers, and homeless.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama because he's black, nor do I think he lived a life without privilege, nor does any of that affect what I think of his ability. I'm still glad we've had a black president now, because it's proof of how far we've come. Also, the more milestones like that a minority (or gender) can cross, the more it helps break down misconceptions regarding them.

What we should be doing is not just enforcing an equal spread. We should be enforcing equal opportunities, such that when the market hires based on talent, we get less of a purely white anglo saxon protestant group.

I hate to say this, but equal opportunity does not mean "free market", just in case anyone gets that idea. People have this notion that "equal opportunity" means "let everybody do what they want and don't interfere"; that doesn't work, because people are born into various levels of privilege. If you're born poor, speaking the wrong dialect of English, etc., you will not have opportunities equal to a rich white person who grew up in a nice town with a nice school and parents who push him to do all the "proper" things to get ahead in life. Even simply hiring based on talent only works to eliminate racial/socioeconomic barriers when people of different races and socioeconomic strata have access to the same opportunities in the first place, which in the real world is virtually never the case.

This isn't necessarily an argument against what you're saying, since I'm not sure how much of this you already agree with, but it's a common enough mode of thought that I figured it's worth mentioning regardless.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Going back some pages...

Warren Jeffs of the FLDS church tells his 12-year-old "wives" they have to have sex with him and each other or God won't let them into heaven (audio in article)

I do not hate, but if there's a few that I would not mourn if they managed to get smited, he wins the prize.

[Gamerlord]

a) Can people stop saying 'enforce'? It kind of scares me a little.

b)

Going back some pages...

Warren Jeffs of the FLDS church tells his 12-year-old "wives" they have to have sex with him and each other or God won't let them into heaven (audio in article)

I do not hate, but if there's a few that I would not mourn if they managed to get smited, he wins the prize.

This man needs to be annihilated. Not killed. He needs to completely and utterly destroyed. Burn him to ash and then dissolve whats left in acid. Every piece of ground he has ever walked on must be burned and then salted so nothing can grow on it again.

[Virex]

Well, there have also been a lot of more serious crimes committed by rioters too (four murders, arson that could very easily have killed dozens of people who were luckily able to escape, several stabbings and serious assaults etc).  And when you have a lot of people doing these things... well, it does become something of a threat to society.

Yes those responsible should be punished. And everyone knew that after the last cuts in social spending, this would happen.
Let's arrest Cameron.

When you talk about large social events, free will is globally irrelevant.

If that's the case, why can Cameron be punished for this? Doesn't punishment require free will? We just decided that was irrelevant...

[Phmcw]

Yes those responsible should be punished. And everyone knew that after the last cuts in social spending, this would happen.
Let's arrest Cameron.

When you talk about large social events, free will is globally irrelevant.

If that's the case, why can Cameron be punished for this? Doesn't punishment require free will? We just decided that was irrelevant...

Because he caused the mass reaction.
In a riot, the situation tend to get out of the spectrum of situations where you can expect people to act reasonably.
Some will, but most won't. Or even a lot won't. If you cause a situation who will lead to a riot, you're more responsible for it than the people rioting.

It's a bit of a mixed responsibility if course : I'm not saying that people that committed crime during riot should not be prosecuted.

To me a riot is half the responsibility of the rioters, half the responsibility of the guys who caused the riot. And the responsibility of the rioters is divided among them.

[Virex]

Why would Cameron be the sole one who started it? He was working with the mandate of over 50% of the population, implementing plans that were at least for a large part thought up by his ministers and advisors and which were backed by a majority in both houses. Are you going to persecute all those people?


Besides, I never heard anyone using the same argument to argue for the persecution of the referee of a soccer game?

[Phmcw]

Why would Cameron be the sole one who started it? He was working with the mandate of over 50% of the population, implementing plans that were at least for a large part thought up by his ministers and advisors and which were backed by a majority in both houses. Are you going to persecute all those people?

Possibly... why not? When they had this deadly incident at the love pride in Germany, the organization got in trouble, not the public.

He, and his government, made policies which were bound to start riots, why can't they be held responsible?

Social peace is one of the responsibilities of the government, just like security is the responsibility of the organization of an even. If they fail so spectacularly that there are riots, and that, in addition, those riots were a logical consequence of these policies, they are responsible of what happened.

[MonkeyHead]

He was working with the mandate of over 50% of the population

Technically, no... far less than 50% of the population voted for thier local Tory MP... There is a conservative minority governemnt propped up by the liberals.

[Leafsnail]

Why would Cameron be the sole one who started it? He was working with the mandate of over 50% of the population

No, he definitely wasn't.  Firstly, he's in a coalition, so he doesn't even have 50% of the House of Commons.  Secondly, first past the post always exaggerates your lead.  Thirdly, a lot of people don't vote.

In total, Cameron won 36.1% of the votes that were cast.  This is around 1/6 of the population.

[Virex]

Still means you'd have to persecute about a third of the population for supporting riot-inducing policies...

[Phmcw]

Still means you'd have to persecute about a third of the population for supporting riot-inducing policies...

Taking an argument and cranking it up to eleven isn't a valid way to make a point.
I say prosecute the decision maker, you say prosecute the voters, that's simply not the same thing.