zombe on 12/6/2020 at 04:49
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I'm saying you're incredibly wrong, though, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
You are not alone.
Sulphur on 12/6/2020 at 04:56
Thank you, zombe.
Quote Posted by icemann
If you feel differently then that's something you'll have to take up with Wikipedia.
Here's Google.
Inline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/BynHAGO.pngHere's (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog) Wikipedia:
'I think by defusing the word 'wog' we've shown our maturity and our great ability to adapt and just laugh things off, you know... When I first came [to Greece] and I started trying to explain to them why we got called 'wog' they'd get really angry about it, you know. They were, "Why? Why they say this about the Greek people?" You know? But then when they see what we've done with it—and this is the twist—that we've turned it into a term of endearment, they actually really get into that...'
And in case you're missing the point, that's basically what African Americans did with the n-word to defang it as a slur. The fact remains that the burden of the emotional calculus has to be done by the people being called the word, not the people using it. And that's a problem; whether you agree or not is not relevant.
Sulphur on 12/6/2020 at 05:09
You're arguing a strawman, icemann. I won't go into exhaustive detail because it's tangential and entirely unrelated to what we're talking about, but you do know that a large number of Muslims live in India and Pakistan, right? And a fair amount of them in Oz didn't just come in from the Middle East? As for clothing, the reason behind burqas and hijabs and non-suggestive clothing is entirely religion-based.
Sulphur on 12/6/2020 at 05:24
Unfortunately, you are, because attempting to normalise racism through religion or culture does not stop it from being racist.
I understand that you don't really grok or get these concepts if I have to go as far as to explain Islam's take on clothing to outline why your reasoning is broken; but I hope you take a moment to really examine what I've typed out there in a manner that isn't clouded over by the weak communal defense of 'we've always done this as a community so it's okay'.
Renzatic on 12/6/2020 at 05:24
I could've worded the last paragraph of my reply a little better there.
demagogue on 12/6/2020 at 05:27
Blacks can take ownership over the n-word and I'm not about to say anything about it, but a sufficient number of people very vocally find it intolerable for other groups to use, no matter what the context, that I'd just as well defer my own judgement and not use it.
The way that used to be a debate to me was doing karaoke. I would never use the word naturally anyway, but I used to feel it was important to recite lyrics just as an artist intended them, because art, recognized art at least, has always had special status for me and one shouldn't change it based on political whims... And of course you can hardly do any hiphop without the n-word all over the place. I think opinions are still divided about that, but now I generally leave it out if I can help it. (Sometimes it's literally hard to stop, especially if it's a fast rap I've listened to a lot).
Gone with the Wind is an interesting data point for me these days. It was the movie that first put Trump on my radar as a racist ass. He was the guest host for a show called Turner Classic Movies, and his pick was Gone with the Wind. This was back in 2001. And what I most remember was, in explaining why he picked that movie, he went on and on unapologetically and without qualification how it was the grandest and most magnificent movie of all time, and IIRC that it was one of the most magnificent eras in US history ... of course. And I think the host kept giving him chances to qualify that, and every chance Trump got of course he'd double down on how fantastic the Antebellum South was. I never really bothered to care about him... He's always been a kind of D-list personality. So that was the first time I understood that he's more or less a horrible human being.
I'm okay with movies being presented with explanatory commentary about its historical context and why we should rightfully find some of its values unacceptable today. No sense in mincing words about it. In the grand scheme of things ... I have to back up. I've studied Transitional Justice for a lot of countries, and what makes it work when it sort of works. The main model for a successful TJ process is called the "Forgiveness Model of Reconciliation", where the oppressor group from a conflict, after it ends, takes full ownership that their forefathers committed these awful atrocities at the time, and that we today are not the same people as our forefathers were. And then they take that redefinition of identity seriously with prosecutions and getting rid of all the accoutrements of the former identity, the flags and banners and slogans, etc.
So then the oppressed group from the conflict is able to trust and forgive them, and both sides redefine their identity, like this is the "new South", or "the New South Africa", the "new Germany", etc., where we're all Americans or South Africans or Germans; we're in this democracy together. The point being, the principal reason a TJ process fails is when the former oppressor group never fully accepts that they're a different people than their forefathers that committed the atrocities. And the oppressed group never fully trusts them. Any good TJ process is going to spend a lot of time dealing with history education and memorialization. It comes up in case after case after case. So the way to think about this business about dismantling the flags and statues is really the US still needs to put itself through this transitional justice process and redefinition of identity that it's never gone through since the Civil War. If you don't do it, the problems don't disappear, and you have to confront these questions of identity and ownership one way or another, if not now, you'll only come right back to it in the future. The point is, you don't get reconciliation until it's done and done right.
Thirith on 12/6/2020 at 06:07
icemann, you are just about one of the least self-reflective people I know, and your arguments in this discussion boils down to variations of "I'm not racist, so what I do cannot be racist, what my friends do cannot be racist, what I don't consider bad cannot be racist, that's the beginning and end of it." I cannot remember a single instance where you have taken an actual look at yourself, your opinions, your reactions. What you're saying is incoherent as an argument, because it always refers back to you and your own attitudes. You seem unable or unwilling to examine those, only to reconfirm them and then dress them up in commonplaces - and you follow up by not engaging what people actually say in response, you just go back to your default position.
You don't see the contradictions and gaping holes in what you post, because honestly, at times you seem to listen to what you're saying as little as you listen to what others are saying.
What you're saying about the W word and the N word, I've read pretty much exactly the same statements by people defending the N word. If you were to follow your own logic, they'd be as correct as you are and any problem with the N word is just down to cultural difference. So why is there a difference? Because.
And your defense of bassoferol's statement as sarcastic is another case in point: you just see what you want to see, without *any* evidence, and then that's it. You think he's sarcastic so obviously he's sarcastic, so obviously there's no problem with what he's said. Why do you come to that conclusion? Because.
Judith on 12/6/2020 at 06:11
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I'm saying you're incredibly wrong, though, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
+1
Although I'm biased, because to me he's been consistently wrong about so many things that I had him on ignore list for several years. That doesn't bother me now though :)
Anyway, I don't see the whole thing as bad as well. The history of manners, European, American, and other, is full of changes like that. Again, it's not about banning things, although private entities can do whatever they want. But extrapolating their actions to a public TV is a misunderstanding, as its mission is different (or at least it's supposed to be different). I don't mind having a film like that amended with some kind of statement or commentary, if there seems to be a need for that. Hell, even something as recent as Friends has some embarrassing stuff in it (f.i. gay jokes, IIRC).
All in all, it's good that we're changing, at least it seems like it's an evolution. Without it, there would be no such thing as sexual harassment for example, and all the weinsteins of the world would still do their thing.
Sulphur on 12/6/2020 at 06:43
See, here again, you're wrong. You're somehow offering what is essentially a refutation of your own point as a counterpoint to mine - I don't know how you're managing this weird little dissonance.
The thing is, I've always been part of a multicultural society, and part of that life is appreciating differences without offending everyone. We've got plenty of different races in the mix every single day, and we know how to get along most of the time - for instance, not only by respecting that some of our northeastern tribal communities are entirely matriarchal when we interact with them, but by also not calling our northeastern brethren 'chinkis', which is a slur. A cultural difference does not make a derogatory slur not a derogatory slur. A lot of people don't heed this, but then at least they also know they're wrong when they do that. (Officially, it's actually illegal to say it in India, which speaks to how serious the issue is.)
The rest of what you're saying is pure projection (and your example of religion? You didn't even realise it was religion until I called that out). You don't get to take out your lack of understanding or social sensitivity on me, I'm afraid.
Sulphur on 12/6/2020 at 07:00
When the conversation devolves to 'no u' with a failure to understand what was an insult and what wasn't, let alone acknowledging the actual topics, it's obviously too stupid to continue; so I'm bowing out. As much as you won't, I'm still going to recommend you reread Thirith's post and do some self-searching.
Everyone else, thank you for chipping in.