Serious Political Correctness and Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, all these "this and that are racist" "this and that are actually sexist" are so made up.
They're not made up as much as they're just plain stupid. It's what happens when society progresses and you run out of things to be outraged over, thus having a need to constantly dig deeper and crush up miniscule things to find even smaller things to be upset about (hence "micro aggression").

Like, if I were American, I would have voted for Obama, but I would have also voted for Trump. Because there's not a strong enough 3rd party for people to vote.
Same boat as you, but probably because I'm smarter now than I was 8 years ago.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Yep. We've definitely reached pinnacle progress. Thanks Martin Luther King Jr, you ended racism and lived to the ripe old age of assassinated by racists. Man that was only 50 years ago how in the fucking fuck do you think we've completely eradicated racism since then. Christ the guy being nominated for ATTORNEY GENERAL was called out as a blatant and disgusting racist by Coretta King years ago when he was nominated as a federal judge.

I mean Christ look at this:


This guy still has a job on the largest American news station everyday.

So if you think that because people like him have stopped using the n word that means they're not still violently abhorrently racist than man i don't know what to say.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I would say that racism definitely exists, but real racism nowadays is very rare.
I mean like, the video you posted was real racism, but average Franny crap like "New ID laws are racist" is not.

But that said, for a Fox news job... lol.
Coz Fox news.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I would say that racism definitely exists, but real racism nowadays is very rare.
I mean like, the video you posted was real racism, but average Franny crap like "New ID laws are racist" is not.

But that said, for a Fox news job... lol.
Coz Fox news.
if you're talking about voter ID laws, they are racist, North Carolina passed laws that were ruled unconstitutional specifically because they were racist. These are also passed by republican state legislators because the people least likely to have qualifying IDs are typically black or college students, two demographics which overwhelmingly vote dem. Voter ID laws that don't provide identification to all people who qualify to vote (at this point all of them afaik) are inherently flawed. If a law has the effect of making it more difficult for a specific racial demographic to practice their constitutional rights is it not a racist law? Or were you cool with Jim Crow laws too?
 
if you're talking about voter ID laws, they are racist, North Carolina passed laws that were ruled unconstitutional specifically because they were racist. These are also passed by republican state legislators because the people least likely to have qualifying IDs are typically black or college students, two demographics which overwhelmingly vote dem. Voter ID laws that don't provide identification to all people who qualify to vote (at this point all of them afaik) are inherently flawed. If a law has the effect of making it more difficult for a specific racial demographic to practice their constitutional rights is it not a racist law? Or were you cool with Jim Crow laws too?
Why are people blaming Putin for everything? Voter ID laws may have not been enough to change to course of the election (and RT's propaganda likely did not convert the left into sitting out or encourage apathetic conservatives to vote for Trump).

Voter ID laws affected voting decisions and turnout more than anything RT has put out.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
if you're talking about voter ID laws, they are racist, North Carolina passed laws that were ruled unconstitutional specifically because they were racist. These are also passed by republican state legislators because the people least likely to have qualifying IDs are typically black or college students, two demographics which overwhelmingly vote dem. Voter ID laws that don't provide identification to all people who qualify to vote (at this point all of them afaik) are inherently flawed. If a law has the effect of making it more difficult for a specific racial demographic to practice their constitutional rights is it not a racist law? Or were you cool with Jim Crow laws too?
Is it really difficult to get a photo ID in USA?
How much does it cost to have a photo ID? (Compared to like, an average meal or so?)
And is that an unreasonably high price?

If a law has the effect of making it more difficult for a specific racial demographic [snip] directly with intention, then it is a racist law.
Which I believe that this in this case, it's difficult to judge whether or not they have the intention.

You'd probably argue with me about intention doesn't affect impact, but still.
I think intention is still important because being offended is something you choose. Or at least, I'd argue that you can choose to be offended or not.

Most countries that have ID cards have photo IDs anyway.
It's actually weird to not have a photo on your ID.

As long as it's not very expensive, I don't see how it's targeted against black people.

EDIT: No, I think I'm actually slightly convinced. Maybe I can be totally convinced if you elaborate more.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
It's basically impossible to get a photo ID in Idaho, and the polling place where I voted actually broke state laws making me run through hoops before I could vote.
What usual restrictions do they have for obtaining a photo ID?
Is it really hard to get the requirements?
Like, do you have to vote in the same state where you registered to vote, and do you have to go back to the same state if you want to change anything, etc?
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Why are people blaming Putin for everything? Voter ID laws may have not been enough to change to course of the election (and RT's propaganda likely did not convert the left into sitting out or encourage apathetic conservatives to vote for Trump).

Voter ID laws affected voting decisions and turnout more than anything RT has put out.
I didn't say anything about Putin so I assume this is just using my post as a jumping post. I agree voter laws had an effect on the election fwiw.

comparing voter id laws to jim crow is insane. how is wanting a voter to have a photo id racist, especially when it's not hard to get them?
Both were laws that disproportionately disenfranchised black voters (intentional or not) under the guise of making sure they were qualified to vote, how is this not an apt comparison. Wanting a voter to have id isn't racist, it's actually a good idea if everyone is provided with an equal opportunity to get one (voter ID cards would be smart, but cost money.

Photo id is harder to get than you think, it's essentially drivers license, passport, or military ID card (off the top of my head). To get a drivers license you need a car (or at least access to one for roughly a year + permit classes), this is a large barrier to entry especially if you are in an urban area and don't need a car (urban areas are also more liberal). To get a passport you need a photo ID, so your parents either needed to have gotten you a passport as a minor, you need to have a drivers license or you need to have a military ID card (you see the issue with this I assume). Military ID card you need to be in the military.

You probably grew up in an area where having a car is normal, or maybe your family traveled internationally a lot. So while it's easy for you to get an ID (it was for me too) it's absolutely asinine to assume it's just as easy for everyone else.

Is it really difficult to get a photo ID in USA?
How much does it cost to have a photo ID? (Compared to like, an average meal or so?)
And is that an unreasonably high price?

If a law has the effect of making it more difficult for a specific racial demographic [snip] directly with intention, then it is a racist law.
Which I believe that this in this case, it's difficult to judge whether or not they have the intention.

You'd probably argue with me about intention doesn't affect impact, but still.
I think intention is still important because being offended is something you choose. Or at least, I'd argue that you can choose to be offended or not.

Most countries that have ID cards have photo IDs anyway.
It's actually weird to not have a photo on your ID.

As long as it's not very expensive, I don't see how it's targeted against black people.

EDIT: No, I think I'm actually slightly convinced. Maybe I can be totally convinced if you elaborate more.
Drivers license is the easiest imo, and it costs car access.

As I said I don't think supporting voter ID laws is inherently racist, rather that curt voter id laws make it disproportionately hard for college students and POC (especially black people) to vote. And therefore the laws themselves are racist due to that impact (not necessarily the people that support them). I do believe republican law makers are doing this to rig the system in their favor given the shifting demographics of America and their struggle to appeal to non-white Americans.

Also for the record voter ID laws don't offend me on a personal level (I'm white, have a drivers license and passport, and live in a state w/o one of these laws), they're just horribly implemented and seem pretty unconstitutional (and if not they are certainly toeing the line).
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I didn't say anything about Putin so I assume this is just using my post as a jumping post. I agree voter laws had an effect on the election fwiw.


Both were laws that disproportionately disenfranchised black voters (intentional or not) under the guise of making sure they were qualified to vote, how is this not an apt comparison. Wanting a voter to have id isn't racist, it's actually a good idea if everyone is provided with an equal opportunity to get one (voter ID cards would be smart, but cost money.

Photo id is harder to get than you think, it's essentially drivers license, passport, or military ID card (off the top of my head). To get a drivers license you need a car (or at least access to one for roughly a year + permit classes), this is a large barrier to entry especially if you are in an urban area and don't need a car (urban areas are also more liberal). To get a passport you need a photo ID, so your parents either needed to have gotten you a passport as a minor, you need to have a drivers license or you need to have a military ID card (you see the issue with this I assume). Military ID card you need to be in the military.

You probably grew up in an area where having a car is normal, or maybe your family traveled internationally a lot. So while it's easy for you to get an ID (it was for me too) it's absolutely asinine to assume it's just as easy for everyone else.


Drivers license is the easiest imo, and it costs car access.

As I said I don't think supporting voter ID laws is inherently racist, rather that curt voter id laws make it disproportionately hard for college students and POC (especially black people) to vote. And therefore the laws themselves are racist due to that impact (not necessarily the people that support them). I do believe republican law makers are doing this to rig the system in their favor given the shifting demographics of America and their struggle to appeal to non-white Americans.

Also for the record voter ID laws don't offend me on a personal level (I'm white, have a drivers license and passport, and live in a state w/o one of these laws), they're just horribly implemented and seem pretty unconstitutional (and if not they are certainly toeing the line).
I think I can see that how people could have chosen to filter out the black population this way.
I'm not saying that I'm exactly sure or have concrete prove, but I mean I understand how potentially, people choose to use this as an excuse.
Especially how this is very difficult to prove, I would say.

Holy molly, that's a lot of cards.
Had to google what a military ID card is.
 
repeatedly labeling something racist (w/o any evidence proving this) doesnt mean its racist. making every issue involving blacks overall not having equal outcome to whites, etc. a racist issue is just crazy. jim crow was purposefully targeting blacks with impossible literacy tests and ridiculiously high poll taxes, all with clear, racist intent. even if voter id laws specifically targeted blacks (in which the evidence for this is slim and flimsy at best, just wanting to eliminate any possibility of voter fraud), it's not exactly some hard challenge to get qualified. for north carolina, all you need is a birth certificate to prove identity (cheap and easy to get), a Social Security # (also easy to get), utility/cable bill or school records (proof of residency) (again, easy to get), and either be a us citizen or prove that you have the legal presence to get the id card (yet again, not hard to do). you dont even need these exact things, ill post a table listing all the options, but those options are easy as hell to get. if you dont know how to get the stuff, ask someone or do research. if you cant afford to get the stuff, its so cheap that basic saving will provide for it in no time. if you cant show up, you can get a letter from your doctor and you can still get the card. some situations will allow you to not pay, so money isnt an issue, and its only $13 for the id itself. you can even do it if you are homeless. not hard at all, all you need is basic research and a bit of work (emphasis on a bit). also, you dont need a drivers license to get it. whats the point of having an id card if you have a drivers license? not much i can think of. also worth noting the judges who striked it down were all democrat, making the ruling biased towards removing it from the beginning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/id/
https://www.ncdot.gov/download/dmv/DMV_voter_id_list.pdf
Edit @ below: you posted too fast before i made my final edit. some situations dont even require you to pay, and again the materials are still very cheap. saving like 50 cents - $1 every day or 2 isnt much at all, and it isnt that damn hard anyway. the homeless only need a letter from the shelter and a few documents, which arent hard to get, especially with some help. some of them might already even have the documents anyway.
 
Last edited:
repeatedly labeling something racist (w/o any evidence proving this) doesnt mean its racist. making every issue involving blacks overall not having equal outcome to whites, etc. a racist issue is just crazy. jim crow was purposefully targeting blacks with impossible literacy tests and ridiculiously high poll taxes, all with clear, racist intent. even if voter id laws specifically targeted blacks (in which the evidence for this is slim and flimsy at best, just wanting to eliminate any possibility of voter fraud), it's not exactly some hard challenge to get qualified. for north carolina, all you need is a birth certificate to prove identity (cheap and easy to get), a Social Security # (also easy to get), utility/cable bill or school records (proof of residency) (again, easy to get), and either be a us citizen or prove that you have the legal presence to get the id card (yet again, not hard to do). you dont even need these exact things, ill post a table listing all the options, but those options are easy as hell to get. if you dont know how to get the stuff, ask someone or do research. if you cant afford to get the stuff, its so cheap that basic saving will provide for it in no time. if you cant show up, you can get a letter from your doctor and you can still get the card. some situations will allow you to not pay, so money isnt an issue, and its only $13 for the id itself. you can even do it if you are homeless. not hard at all, all you need is basic research and a bit of work (emphasis on a bit). also, you dont need a drivers license to get it. whats the point of having an id card if you have a drivers license? not much i can think of. also worth noting the judges who striked it down were all democrat, making the ruling biased towards removing it from the beginning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/id/
https://www.ncdot.gov/download/dmv/DMV_voter_id_list.pdf
Edit @ below: you posted too fast before i made my final edit. some situations dont even require you to pay, and again the materials are still very cheap. saving like 50 cents - $1 every day or 2 isnt much at all, and it isnt that damn hard anyway. the homeless only need a letter from the shelter and a few documents, which arent hard to get, especially with some help. some of them might already even have the documents anyway.
You need access to all this information to begin with, you need free time during work hours when offices are open, you need a non-negligible amount of money for the documents, you probably need transportation to several different places which costs money and time and most importantly you need motivation and energy to pursue this. Surely you can't list all these and be oblivious to how it isn't as trivial as you describe for people in poverty or working multiple jobs to make ends meet or simply uninformed, who are coincidentally likelier to be minorities and democrat-voting? Do you not see a problem when the well-off can easily vote with documents they have anyway, but the poor are supposed to jump through these hoops?
 
Last edited:
You need access to all this information to begin with, you need free time during work hours when offices are open, you need a non-negligible amount of money for the documents, you probably need transportation to several different places which costs money and time and most importantly you need motivation and energy to pursue this. Surely you can't list all these and be oblivious to how it isn't as trivial as you describe for people in poverty or working multiple jobs to make ends meet or simply uninformed, who are coincidentally likelier to be black and democrat-voting? Do you not see a problem when the well-off can easily vote with documents they have anyway, but the poor are supposed to jump through these hoops?
1. as i stated, either ask or look it up. not hard to do. 2. you dont have to do this all at once, you can take your time in doing it when you have free time. 3. while not literally almost as cheap as dirt, they are still pretty inexpensive and reasonable. the nc license is only $13, and depending on your situation, you dont even have to pay for that. also, places like the library and other people can provide the internet for free. besides, many of these things people already have. i grew up very poor, and I had all this stuff already. plenty of other poor people have them, too 4. again, you dont have to do this all at once. save up your money or find ways to get there that are less expensive. much of this can be done online anyways. 5. yet again, all this is not especially hard, and putting in some effort (emphasis on some because this is not that hard to do at all) to vote isnt exactly a big deal, especially when you have the tools to make it easier on yourself. 6. again look up how to do it (can do this for free too) or ask someone, 7. saving up isnt too damn hard to pay for inexpensive documents (which you might already have), 8. still linking this to racism and party bias with no evidence to support it. 9. you dont have to be well off to vote easily, just plan right and it shouldn't be too hard unless you fuck up or something is up with the voting in your area (ridiculously expensive to get an id which isnt too likely to occur, confusing rules, etc.). 10. these hoops arent exactly hard to jump through. if you look up what to do, plan, and actually care about voting, youll be fine.


After implementing "Voter ID" laws (in snark quotes because we should be calling them by their proper name, poll taxes), Alabama and Wisconsin (and possibly other states, but those are the two I know of) closed down most of their DMVs in majority black and Democratic areas. If you think that's a coincidence, you're too far gone to even be part of this discussion.
oh look, 2 incredibly biased news sources. for both cases, there is a lack of evidence for racism and party bias provided in those links. for Alabama, it is alleged they had budget issues but they brought it back. ill edit this post if i find more about both situations.
 
Last edited:
Icing On Da Cake

In Gingles and other cases brought under the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has explained that polarization renders minority voters uniquely vulnerable to the inevitable tendency of elected officials to entrench themselves by targeting groups unlikely to vote for them. In North Carolina, restriction of voting mechanisms and procedures that most heavily affect African Americans will predictably re dound to the benefit of one political party and to the disadvantage of the other. As the evidence in the record makes clear, that is what happened here.

...

After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates.

...

Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

...

Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

You're welcome.
 
1. as i stated, either ask or look it up. not hard to do. 2. you dont have to do this all at once, you can take your time in doing it when you have free time. 3. while not literally almost as cheap as dirt, they are still pretty inexpensive and reasonable. the nc license is only $13, and depending on your situation, you dont even have to pay for that. also, places like the library and other people can provide the internet for free. besides, many of these things people already have. i grew up very poor, and I had all this stuff already. plenty of other poor people have them, too 4. again, you dont have to do this all at once. save up your money or find ways to get there that are less expensive. much of this can be done online anyways. 5. yet again, all this is not especially hard, and putting in some effort (emphasis on some because this is not that hard to do at all) to vote isnt exactly a big deal, especially when you have the tools to make it easier on yourself. 6. again look up how to do it (can do this for free too) or ask someone, 7. saving up isnt too damn hard to pay for inexpensive documents (which you might already have), 8. still linking this to racism and party bias with no evidence to support it. 9. you dont have to be well off to vote easily, just plan right and it shouldn't be too hard unless you fuck up or something is up with the voting in your area (ridiculously expensive to get an id which isnt too likely to occur, confusing rules, etc.). 10. these hoops arent exactly hard to jump through. if you look up what to do, plan, and actually care about voting, youll be fine.

oh look, 2 incredibly biased news sources. for both cases, there is a lack of evidence for racism and party bias provided in those links. for Alabama, it is alleged they had budget issues but they brought it back. ill edit this post if i find more about both situations.
I usually tend to argue on the conservative side purely for the sake of argumentative equality, but I guess you've got that covered. Tagging Cresselia~~ because you seem to agree with Icing as well. Here we go.

There were 4 confirmed cases of voter fraud last election cycle. (All of them were by republicans but let's ignore that for a bit). Out of the over 130 million votes cast, the percentage of fraudulent votes out of the total votes cast is 0.0000030769230769%, rounded to about three millionths of a percent. But, since obviously voter fraud is such a HUGE, problem, states need to past strict voter ID laws in order to crack down on this issue. The problem with having people supply their own voter id lies in the fact that many low-income, rural, minority, and urban voters are unable to feasibly justify spending so much time or money in order to acquire one.

I won't go over all of these points, but before you start to whine about how "easy" it is to just save up money, you need to realize that for some people taking the time to acquire a drivers license (unless you're in the Military or already have a photo id needed to get a passport, in which case this doesn't apply), not only because of the facts already stated above (the fact that time needs to be taken in order to get to the dmv, drivers ed, etc.), but also because of the fact that many people in cities (heavily democratic areas) do not own cars, (for example, car ownership for all households is about 90%, but car ownership in NYC is only around 50%), and therefore usually cannot even take the test, because you need to supply your own car for it. So yes, you can say how "easy" it is to obtain a license with only $13 in NC, but that number is misleading because you don't take into account the hundreds or thousands of dollars needed to supply a car for the test.

Also, just as a side note that I'm pretty sure has already been stated, does the absence of a birth certificate (for those born in farms, etc.) automatically disqualify them as an American citizen or make their vote null and void? What about the homeless? Just because they're disadvantaged and unlucky enough to not be able to have a roof over their heads makes them automatically unfit to vote? Obviously, I'm not suggesting foreign citizens should be able to vote, but there definitely is a better solution.

I usually don't like using "privilege" as a dis qualifier for arguments, as it is commonly abused, but I think it's worth noting that there's about a 90% chance your mommy or daddy drove you to the DMV, supplied a car for the test, and spent the extra money to acquire all of the needed documents, which makes it pretty difficult for you to empathize with someone who has none of those things.

But, if you still insist on "defending our elections from the looming and enormous threat" of voter fraud, why not just have government issued ideas given to every citizen for free? (while also streamlining the documentation of those born in the US without a formal birth certificate or the homeless) But noooo, that's too much for the government to handle! Free handouts? What's the world coming to? Not to mention the fact that producing a card like that costs about 10 cents, making the cost of providing one to every citizen put the MASSIVE dent into the budget of a one time charge of 0.2% of the GDP. Wow!

(Sorry about the edits, posted this before I finished)
 
Last edited:

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Is it kind of racist to dislike/ dismiss anime / manga styled art in preference to more European or American styled cartoons or dolls.

I see a lot of old people say that anime style is bad art, not correct, but these people are perfectly fine with Disney, which technically is also unrealistic

Also, I saw an artist on facebook who removes anime faces of Japanese dolls and repaint then with Euro styled face ups, and nearly everyone said it was "much better" than the original.
Like, only 2 people were telling her to use a blank head next time, instead of using an anime doll with $60 worth nude. (price does not include clothing)
Those anime heads alone are also worth way more than blank heads.
"You changed a Japanese doll into an Euro doll, which is much better. '

I think this incident is making me unhappy.
 
Is it kind of racist to dislike/ dismiss anime / manga styled art in preference to more European or American styled cartoons or dolls.

I see a lot of old people say that anime style is bad art, not correct, but these people are perfectly fine with Disney, which technically is also unrealistic

Also, I saw an artist on facebook who removes anime faces of Japanese dolls and repaint then with Euro styled face ups, and nearly everyone said it was "much better" than the original.
Like, only 2 people were telling her to use a blank head next time, instead of using an anime doll with $60 worth nude. (price does not include clothing)
Those anime heads alone are also worth way more than blank heads.
"You changed a Japanese doll into an Euro doll, which is much better. '

I think this incident is making me unhappy.
I don't think appreciating all culture the same way has anything to do with respect or racial equality. Saying you prefer a certain country's food, style of animation, movies, traditions, or otherwise is neither racist or indicative of systemic racism. While it's true that someone who grew up in a culture is more likely to enjoy it, people are more than capable of abstracting and judging things on a technical level.

Respect, however, is important, as is intent. It really seems like the artist who goes around replacing anime girls heads is trying to make a statement that I find questionable but I don't know enough about the context. If it's meant to showcase style and experiment with what makes each style unique and character defining for instance, I might not have a problem with it. If it's meant to say these Japanese-drawn girls are bad and I'm here to make them whiter and better then yeah I do have a problem.

Probably the best indicator for a lot of these things is tact and sensitivity. Would a Japanese person reasonably find this offensive in it's execution? If so, what efforts can be made to mitigate that? Is the problem fundamental to the thing you're doing? There will always be unreasonable or oversensitive people and nothing can be done about them but like many other social gray areas it's usually not hard to draw the line in context.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I don't think appreciating all culture the same way has anything to do with respect or racial equality. Saying you prefer a certain country's food, style of animation, movies, traditions, or otherwise is neither racist or indicative of systemic racism. While it's true that someone who grew up in a culture is more likely to enjoy it, people are more than capable of abstracting and judging things on a technical level.

Respect, however, is important, as is intent. It really seems like the artist who goes around replacing anime girls heads is trying to make a statement that I find questionable but I don't know enough about the context. If it's meant to showcase style and experiment with what makes each style unique and character defining for instance, I might not have a problem with it. If it's meant to say these Japanese-drawn girls are bad and I'm here to make them whiter and better then yeah I do have a problem.

Probably the best indicator for a lot of these things is tact and sensitivity. Would a Japanese person reasonably find this offensive in it's execution? If so, what efforts can be made to mitigate that? Is the problem fundamental to the thing you're doing? There will always be unreasonable or oversensitive people and nothing can be done about them but like many other social gray areas it's usually not hard to draw the line in context.
I asked the artist, and she said she only buy those Japanese dolls because the outfit is amazing.
She's buying the outfit for her another doll, then she has the nude doll with a face she doesn't like, so she's repainting them.

That I find ok.

Just that one comment was not ok. "You changed a Japanese doll into an Euro doll, which is much better. " which is suggesting Euro doll is better than Japanese doll, instead of commenting on the individual artist's skills.

I'd say she has very good skills. There's nothing wrong with saying that her painting is better than the original doll, as long as you don't say stuff like "Euro doll is much better than Japanese doll."
 
thought provoking piece that is tangential to the thread but worth sharing imo

http://queerandpresentdanger.tumblr.com/post/126519460600

excerpt:

"It is intellectually lazy and actively complicit to assume that desire is both fixed and somehow exempt from the potential to be changed, expanded, or undone.

Especially for people who operate with the understanding (and rightfully so, in my opinion) that we have internalized hierarchical and oppressive notions of personhood (including but not limited to white supremacy, anti-Blackness, transmisogyny, ableism, fat hatred, misogyny, classism, and more), that impact how we interact with each other both structurally and interpersonally, and that unlearning and reorienting ourselves against these is a life-long and daily process. How is desire not also informed by these things? How is it not merely another category of the oppressive things we have been taught about each other that needs to be interrogated? Why does the potential to unlearn end there? Like, yes, desire absolutely impacts our most personal and intimate aspects of our lives… and so do these systems. To accept that this one aspect operates outside– or within, but untouchable– is a choice."
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Why is religious discrimination (especially against Muslims) grouped under racism in English?
Can we not have a separate word for religious discrimination?

A lot of Asian countries have over 50% Muslim population too.
 

Ampharos

tag walls, punch fascists
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
Why is religious discrimination (especially against Muslims) grouped under racism in English?
Can we not have a separate word for religious discrimination?

A lot of Asian countries have over 50% Muslim population too.
Because a lot of Americans who are prejudiced against Muslims fail to distinguish between those who practice Islam and those who simply happen to have the same skin color. Regardless of the original intent, it winds up being racism.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Yes, there are many documented cases of people attacking Sikhs, for example, under the impression that they are Muslims. It affects individuals that are perceived to be Muslims (the phrase I've heard that I like is discrimination against 'apparent Muslims').

and EDIT:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ion-refugees-slaves-immigration-a7553041.html

"The very country to which many of our people were taken as slaves during the transatlantic slave trade has now decided to ban refugees from some of our countries,” said Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.

and

https://medium.com/@BaconTribe/the-...americas-islamophobia-374fa6d0947b#.lhcev5ltg

edit 2: just in case you dont see these stories elsewhere:

https://thinkprogress.org/islamic-center-of-victoria-fire-8a683f632a7a

"A Texas mosque was set on fire just hours after Trump signed an executive order restricting migration from Muslim-majority countries."

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30...as-a-moroccan-muslim-hes-a-white-nationalist/

"White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer exploited the attack to justify President Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries. “It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,” Spicer said at this afternoon’s briefing when speaking of the Quebec City attack.

But these assertions are utterly false. The suspect is neither Moroccan nor Muslim. The Moroccan individual, Mohamed Belkhadir, was actually one of the worshippers at the mosque and called 911 to summon the police, and played no role whatsoever in the shooting.

The actual shooting suspect is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian who is, by all appearances, a rabid anti-immigrant nationalist. A leader of a local immigration rights groups, François Deschamps, told a local paper he recognized his photo as an anti-immigrant far-right “troll” who has been hostile to the group online."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top