froghawk on 27/5/2017 at 01:17
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Racism is systematic so since white people hold a lot of the power in USA you can't be racist against white Americans. Ethnic minorities in USA can't be racist, only prejudiced.
[spoiler]I'm totally joking but there are actual people who do hold these opinions, I kid you not.[/spoiler]
That's not a ridiculous statement, it's just drawing a distinction between prejudice against those whole hold power and privilege over you vs prejudice against those you hold power and privilege over. It's a useful distinction, and I have no interesting in getting into semantic debates over which words we should use to mean those things. 'Reverse racism isn't real' is good enough for me, I don't see a reason to invent another term for it.
Pyrian on 27/5/2017 at 01:54
Quote Posted by froghawk
That's not a ridiculous statement, it's just drawing a distinction between prejudice against those whole hold power and privilege over you vs prejudice against those you hold power and privilege over.
But it's not making
that distinction. It is, instead, generalizing and stereotyping that distinction to the point of absurdity. I don't really have a problem with arguing that "Black worker's prejudice against his white boss isn't racism (because it doesn't actually matter)" but when you claim that minorities
can't be racist then you have to also defend things like "Asian boss refuses to promote black workers because of his racial prejudice, isn't racism", which is nonsense.
froghawk on 27/5/2017 at 01:58
Well, that's the distinction made by everyone I've ever met who holds that position. The original statement was that racism can't be directed against white Americans specifically - whether minorities can be racist towards each other is a completely different issue. The statement was never 'minorities can't be racist', it was that you can't be racist against the race that's the dominant power in your society because there are too many other factors built into that (i.e. power imbalances) for it to ever come from a place of pure prejudice. So yes, your hypothetical strawman is indeed nonsense, but no one actually made that argument - nor have I ever met someone who has.
edit: Case in point pulled right off my Facebook feed today:
Quote:
Racism isn't the same thing as "racial angst". Just as women are often more vocal in their opposition to sexism, rape, and FGM than are the men responsible for perpetuating them, people of color are more motivated to tear down the societal structures that perpetuate racism. Racism isn't a feeling or an isolated activity or a poorly mannered person. It is a structure of power and advantage that disproportionately benefits white people at the expense of people of color.
Tony_Tarantula on 27/5/2017 at 20:18
Well, if you still think that people who identify as left leaning are more tolerant, go to that Kotaku article and check out the comments section.
There's a lot of them Gleeful over the prospect of getting to kill people just because they don't like the politics of those people. In a game, for sure, but there's a disturbing number of commenters stating directly or indirectly that they want to do it in real life but don't want to deal with the consequences.
Quote:
That's not a ridiculous statement, it's just drawing a distinction between prejudice against those whole hold power and privilege over you vs prejudice against those you hold power and privilege over. It's a useful distinction, and I have no interesting in getting into semantic debates over which words we should use to mean those things. 'Reverse racism isn't real' is good enough for me, I don't see a reason to invent another term for it.
I don't think you understand the definition of "racism".
Quote:
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
Nowhere in that definition is the requirement that the race being discriminated against lack "power and privilege". Both white power ideologies and black ideologies that claim only only Black people are "real humans" while white people are "mutants" fall under that definition.
Technically speaking, "systemic racism" would be an accurate terminology if used to describe the concept that societal structures are set up to perpetuate a racist ideology. That doesn't equate to it being impossible for the underprivileged to hold racist attitudes.
Nevermind that the entire conversation is stupid. Everyone's talking about trying to "eliminate white privilege" when we SHOULD be focusing on economic empowerement and independence of minority families. Y'alls narrative doesn't solve any problems other than how to stir up votes for American Democrats.
catbarf on 27/5/2017 at 21:01
Quote Posted by froghawk
That's not a ridiculous statement, it's just drawing a distinction between prejudice against those whole hold power and privilege over you vs prejudice against those you hold power and privilege over. It's a useful distinction, and I have no interesting in getting into semantic debates over which words we should use to mean those things. 'Reverse racism isn't real' is good enough for me, I don't see a reason to invent another term for it.
I can see the use in an academic context for that distinction, but the way I see it invoked in the real world always seems like a bait and switch- 'my prejudice is acceptable because it does not meet one definition of racism', when really it's the racial prejudice that people have a problem with, whether that prejudice is backed with power or not. Like, if someone were accused of racism for saying 'I hate white people' and their defense was '
technically I can't be racist by academic definition, I'm just a racially prejudiced bigot', well, that's not much of a defense.
Anyways, color me interested in this game with a dash of wariness. I think militias and religious sects are underused as gaming antagonists- I'm trying to think of anything besides horror games that have featured Branch Davidian-esque antagonists.
froghawk on 27/5/2017 at 21:15
Again, I said I have no interest whatsoever in arguing the semantics of what terms you want to use for these things. It's a waste of time.
And Tony, the left has never had any interest in 'tolerance'. That's some neoliberal PC nonsense used to mask policies that hurt minorities, not an actual leftist position. You clearly have no idea what my narrative actually is, but feel free to keep directing your posts at a liberal strawman anyway.
Tony_Tarantula on 27/5/2017 at 23:49
They've shown up a couple of times. GTA V had a number of missions for Trevor Phillips where he interacts with a variety of militia/right wing inspired types, and in each instance he starts off by playing along with the crazy before eventually getting pissed off murdering them all violently.
All that aside, the fury over this game taps into one of the big reasons why I don't play contemporary shooters anymore. After actually deploying I find Call of Duty and it's ilk to be completely and utterly tasteless. I only make exceptions in theory ( in practice I don't want to spend the money/time) for more "simulation" type games such as Arma that are less about glorifying warfare and more about trying to accurately portray what a conflict is like. I also made an exception for Spec Ops: The Line because that game has a story that deconstructs your typical war shooter.
Fictionalized conflicts are one thing, but it's something else entirely to glorify jingoism whether that be against muslims or other Americans.
Quote:
And Tony, the left has never had any interest in 'tolerance'. That's some neoliberal PC nonsense used to mask policies that hurt minorities, not an actual leftist position. You clearly have no idea what my narrative actually is, but feel free to keep directing your posts at a liberal strawman anyway.
Not referring strictly to you there, bad verbiage. Although the phrase you invoked, "used to mask....", implies that you do admit there is an attempt at establishing a consistent narrative for the movement.
Renzatic on 28/5/2017 at 00:26
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Not referring strictly to you there, bad verbiage. Although the phrase you invoked, "used to mask....", implies that you do admit there is an attempt at establishing a consistent narrative for the movement.
You do realize that neoliberals aren't the usual set of liberals you're always so anxiously framing as your oppressors, right?
Tony_Tarantula on 28/5/2017 at 23:55
Quote Posted by Renzatic
You do realize that neoliberals aren't the usual set of liberals you're always so anxiously framing as your oppressors, right?
I think the question is whether YOU understand what neoliberals actually are..or for that matter that he does either, but why not run with it?
That aside it's a moot point, since I believe that a lot of your run of the mill college leftists are just useful idiots for the so called "liberals"( more like fascists) who advocate policies like bombing brown people who dare to produce oil without OPEC's blessing.
For whether liberals are doing anything, I challenge you to name just ONE globally powerful institution that is controlled by Conservatives. The only thing you can probably name is "Trump". Every major corporation, the overwhelming majority of NGO's, and almost every Western government espouses progressive ideology. Conservatives can not "oppress" because they lack the power to oppress anyone outside of their own neighborhood.
That said....let's be realistic here.
Far Cry 4 was a flop. Far Cry Primal was even worse.
What they're trying to do is pump out one more sequel for the game, and they're hoping stirring up controversy in order to keep up at least some sales for it. The only group they can be blatantly prejudiced against without being torn to shreds by the gaming press is white Christians, so that's who they're going to target.
Renzatic on 29/5/2017 at 18:11
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
What they're trying to do is pump out one more sequel for the game, and they're hoping stirring up controversy in order to keep up at least some sales for it. The only group they can be blatantly prejudiced against without being torn to shreds by the gaming press is white Christians, so that's who they're going to target.
Oh please, quit being such a victim. No one complained about any of the settings in the previous Far Crys, which included everyone from black people to sherpas, and the only people who ever once dared to complain are you chip-on-your-shoulders bunch who think that making this most recent rev about a bunch of Montanans fighting back against a cult tearing through their town somehow serves as proof of this liberal conspiracy against white Christians.
Hell, by this point, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought Bioshock Infinite was communist propaganda.
I swear. You're worse than those obnoxious college kids running around screaming cultural appropriation over everything. At least they're attempting to consider other people's feelings, misguided and overwrought though their notions may occasionally be. You're just looking for excuses to explain why YOU'RE the real victim.
