Serious Political Correctness and Race

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Interesting. I never associated Muslims with a particular skin color.
Most Muslims I encounter are either blacks or Asians.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Not sure if it belongs to here

I find it interesting how Indian Americans identify themselves as Asian, or at least want to be called Asian.
And Indian Americans get offended when videos about Asians do not include Indian people.
Whilst, people legitimately from India do not really associate themselves with other Asians, especially East Asians.

Indian Americans often argue that India is in Asia, but in reality India is a subcontinent.
People legitimately from India know that India is a subcontinent and this subcontinent is shared with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and other countries.

Does American education teach that India is in Asia, or is it just not discussed? It seems that most Americans don't know about it.
In the UK, it's heavily stressed that India is a subcontinent.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
People know that India is on its own tectonic plate (and I've heard to it referred to as its own subcontinent) along with a couple other south Asian countries, but India is still in Asia (continents aren't defined by continental plates otherwise Eurasia would be 1 continent), therefore it makes sense to refer to them as Asian.

From Wikipedia 'the term "subcontinent" signifies a "subdivision of a continent which has a distinct geographical, political, or cultural identity"', so the Indian subcontinent is a subdivision of Asia in this case.

I guess the answer to your question is yes, it is taught that India is in Asia, because it is a subcontinent of Asia. Cresselia~~
 
Whole thing is absolute bs, honestly, people being afraid of words or jokes. I can understand not wanting to deal with relentless harassment, but when I can't even cite cold hard statistics to back up my points without someone calling me a Neo-Nazi as their only response, that is quite irritating. No one should have to censor themselves to such extremes, and it's ludicrous to think that it will do any good. People inevitably lend far more power to a word or phrase when they decide that it's off-limits.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
yeah it must be really irritating for you to be just like every other chad out there ready to cite misleading or misguided statistics that everyone has seen before and have people not take you seriously because you expect them to respond to your fresh brand of retreaded bullshit.

Literally the same rhetorical arguments have been used for decades and people find some singular report from a conservative think-tank and say "THE TRUTH OUTS!!!" acting like it's some kind of revelation.
 
yeah it must be really irritating for you to be just like every other chad out there ready to cite misleading or misguided statistics that everyone has seen before and have people not take you seriously because you expect them to respond to your fresh brand of retreaded bullshit.

Literally the same rhetorical arguments have been used for decades and people find some singular report from a conservative think-tank and say "THE TRUTH OUTS!!!" acting like it's some kind of revelation.
Misleading or misguided in what form?

You make an awful lot of assumptions, I do not come solely from conservative think tanks, I'm not even particularly right-leaning. I'm not acting like they're earth-shattering revelations, either, I treat them as simply facts and present them as such, it's just a common trend to have people jump down your throat when you're just trying to be critical of something or sharing your honest thoughts on any topic, like right now with you having a panic attack because you apparently think I am some sort of frat boy.
 
Last edited:

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Are any sources actually unbiased towards any political side though?
How do you know that lib sponsored studies or statistics are more correct?
 
Are any sources actually unbiased towards any political side though?
How do you know that lib sponsored studies or statistics are more correct?
Dunno if this was directed at me, but personally I do alot of cross-referencing(?) to see what checks out and what doesn't. The sources will invariably try to skew things in their favour, more often than not, but there is almost always some small grain of honesty that can be reaped from even some of the most fanatical places.
 
Ooh a politically charged thread this forum is gas

Are any sources actually unbiased towards any political side though?
How do you know that lib sponsored studies or statistics are more correct?
A large majority of media in America is biased, it's true. However a majority of the reporting is just reporting and the bias appears from opinions which everyone is entitled to. Ocassionally bias will show up in factual reporting but neither liberals nor conservatives are more responsible for this, and the biases that do appear in media are very slight. The only trend I've noticed between the two major parties is that liberals tend to be more ignorant or rationalizing of their own bias. You hear "the truth has a liberal bias" from like washington post or new york times but you don't hear "the truth has a conservative bias". That being said, I tend to trust sources such as CNN and BBC more often because I think they are much more reputable as news sources and if a bias occurs I'm more likely to notice it.
The world as a whole is becoming more liberal, though strong conservative movements are rising in America, Britian, and Sweden for example. Conservatives are still a dying breed. Opponents of political correctness see it as a type of censorship, where you cannot say things like Mexican because a Hispanic person isn't necessarily from Mexico. Even though the politically correct term for African Americans in the '60s was Negro, that term is considered outdated or even offensive today. Yet black people of this generation call each other n**. Only white people are not allowed to say it. Proponents of political correctness probably see it as a type of standardization. In both cases, the most important part is being understood correctly. I tend to view political correctness as gross oversimplifications but that isn't always the case.
I can understand the Muslim hatred from 9/11 but now it's getting obnoxious. Trump was propelled into office by fear of strangers and terrorism. On the other side, some softies are afraid of trump, which i can understand, but honestly he can't exert his influence for an extended period of time. People actually started crying when trump won the election. Absolutely no sympathy for them. They should consider themselves lucky to be in America, where the agenda of one moron can be overturned by a group of slightly smarter morons.
The whole concept of racism stems from pretty simple human psychology. It's our incessant need to categorize everything we come across that makes race exist. Stereotypes also exist, and they can be dangerous, but they also serve an important purpose in the human thought process as a heuristic. It allows us to make shortcuts while thinking. For example, if we were buying a present for a cousin, we would buy them something different based on their age and sex. It may be the case that they end up being a 14 year old boy who enjoys dolls and the Nerf gun we got them was tragically incompetent gift giving. That's really unlikely though. So the stereotype that Asians are good at video games also has a basis in fact. Just watch professional league of Legends.
 
racism is about money more than anything. The psychological aspect is why it's so easy to fall for.

I mean, if white people truly believed that black people were inferior, than why would they go out of their way to make complicated systems to oppress them? By the logic of racism, wouldn't black people just fail on their own?
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
racism is about money more than anything. The psychological aspect is why it's so easy to fall for.

I mean, if white people truly believed that black people were inferior, than why would they go out of their way to make complicated systems to oppress them? By the logic of racism, wouldn't black people just fail on their own?
I believe it's more of a "you are not us" thing.
That's what I've experienced for living in the UK but not being white.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
I believe it's more of a "you are not us" thing.
That's what I've experienced for living in the UK but not being white.
This is partially true but what's to be gained by just being xenophobic? Ultimately that feeling of "you are not us" ends up serving a purpose that measurably benefits the oppressive class. Chattel Slavery monetarily benefitted the white ruling class and white supremacy and racism was used to justify it. Currently systems are in place that limit class mobility for persons of color to keep them as the labor force to be exploited. Racism is a financially prudent strategy for white people.
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
This is partially true but what's to be gained by just being xenophobic? Ultimately that feeling of "you are not us" ends up serving a purpose that measurably benefits the oppressive class. Chattel Slavery monetarily benefitted the white ruling class and white supremacy and racism was used to justify it. Currently systems are in place that limit class mobility for persons of color to keep them as the labor force to be exploited. Racism is a financially prudent strategy for white people.
Once people conceive that "you are not us", then they'd compete/ compare-- rivalry appears, and people feel good when their group is supposed to be "supreme".
A scapegoat for people to step on, to hate.
To have a common enemy, which unites like minded people.
 

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Community Leaderis a Live Chat Contributor
Community Leader
A scapegoat for what?
As productivity has increased drastically due to technology over the past few decades the standard of living hasn't. It's the reason politicians talk about "helping the workers" or "fixing the economy" when the market is technically at record highs. It's a lot easier for people to blame minorities for "taking their jobs" than it is to look at the real issues facing working people of all colors. Everything's getting more expensive, more jobs are being done by fewer people, there's no serious effort to retrain people who have had their jobs made obsolete, wages aren't going up, etc, etc, etc.


It's so much easier to point blame on minorities than it is to deal with the realities of economic issues. This is why we're seeing a rise in fascism and attacks on democracy going unopposed. Never again my ass.
 
As productivity has increased drastically due to technology over the past few decades the standard of living hasn't. It's the reason politicians talk about "helping the workers" or "fixing the economy" when the market is technically at record highs. It's a lot easier for people to blame minorities for "taking their jobs" than it is to look at the real issues facing working people of all colors. Everything's getting more expensive, more jobs are being done by fewer people, there's no serious effort to retrain people who have had their jobs made obsolete, wages aren't going up, etc, etc, etc.


It's so much easier to point blame on minorities than it is to deal with the realities of economic issues. This is why we're seeing a rise in fascism and attacks on democracy going unopposed. Never again my ass.
Even then, this still goes back to greed.

Read this excerpt from Martin Luther King's speech at the end of the Selma march:
Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known as the Populist Movement.The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.

To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society. (Right) I want you to follow me through here because this is very important to see the roots of racism and the denial of the right to vote. Through their control of mass media, they revised the doctrine of white supremacy. They saturated the thinking of the poor white masses with it, (Yes) thus clouding their minds to the real issue involved in the Populist Movement. They then directed the placement on the books of the South of laws that made it a crime for Negroes and whites to come together as equals at any level. (Yes, sir) And that did it. That crippled and eventually destroyed the Populist Movement of the nineteenth century.

If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. (Yes, sir) He gave him Jim Crow. (Uh huh) And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, (Yes, sir) he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. (Right sir) And he ate Jim Crow. (Uh huh) And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. (Yes, sir) And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, (Speak) their last outpost of psychological oblivion. (Yes, sir)
 

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/03/pictures-of-food-racist/
Put down your cell phone and stop taking pictures of your food. You may be a racist.
BBC has recently published an article asking, ‘Are food bloggers fueling racist stereotypes?’ In fact, Bon Appetit Magazine had their own issue with food racism. In September, Bon Appetit Magazine created a video about a Vietnamese food dish called pho where, according to BBC, they said it was “the new ramen” which angered people who immediately pointed out that ramen and pho were from different countries…

In September, Bon Appetit Magazine created a video about a Vietnamese food dish called pho where, according to BBC, they said it was “the new ramen” which angered people who immediately pointed out that ramen and pho were from different countries…
I wonder how many of these angered people are actually Vietnamese themselves?
My impression is that most cultural appropriation issues are not considered offensive in their own countries.

But I can understand how some people feel it's a problem, especially after reading this.

Why Cultural Appropriation Is a Problem
Cultural appropriation remains a concern for a variety of reasons. For one, this sort of “borrowing” is exploitative because it robs minority groups of the credit they deserve. Art and music forms that originated with minority groups come to be associated with members of the dominant group. As a result, the dominant group is deemed innovative and edgy, while the disadvantaged groups they “borrow” from continue to face negative stereotypes that imply they’re lacking in intelligence and creativity. In addition, when members of a dominant group appropriate the cultures of others, they often reinforce stereotypes about minority groups.
http://racerelations.about.com/od/d...ultural-Appropriation-and-Why-Is-It-Wrong.htm

But really, African culture is really different from Asian culture, and most people from Asian countries actually feel happy when white people use their culture for something.
Most Japanese people got really excited to see Katy Perry in the controversial kimono.

So, I personally feel that cultural appropriation is to be judged case by case, especially country by country, because what offends people (majority speaking) of a certain country does not necessarily offends people of another country.

In the case of this "pho is the new ramen", I doubt that people legitimately from Vietnam are offended at all.
But I can see that if it's an African country, people legitimately from Africa would be offended.

So... what do you guys think?

Nico Lang, a guest blogger for the Los Angeles Times, pointed out in a post that cultural appropriation highlights the power imbalance that remains between those in power and those who’ve been historically marginalized. As such, a member of a dominant group can assume the traditional dress of a minority group for a Halloween party or a musical performance. Yet, they remain blissfully unaware of the roots of such dress and the challenges those who originated it have faced in Western society.
On the other hand, I don't like halloween costumes.
I'm not sure if I'm actually offended, but I just think that Halloween costumes are a bad idea because it feels like the costume makers aren't respecting the culture.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
I'd say the thing about cultural appropriation is the erasure of the culture it's from. Often things are presented in a way as being "new" or "innovative" when in fact they've existed a very long time in a different culture. An example lately is a fad of using a backboard to swaddle babies in and there are various outlets reporting on its unique innovation when Native cultures have been doing that for centuries. By erasing the history and context that portion of the culture is stolen and reattributed to those who stole it.

Example: Katy Perry wearing a kimono could be viewed as an homage to Japanese culture. If people then credited Katy Perry as the progenitor of the Kimono as fashion then it'd be a significant problem.
 
Calling pho the new ramen is, at the very least, pretty stupid since pho has been around since the dish has been around since the 1930's.

Also for the love of God please don't post links to milo yiannopoulus' website.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
"
Palestinian refugees and exiles are "prohibited from returning to their homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory" on the basis that they "constitute a 'demographic threat' and that their return would alter the demographic character of Israel".

As well as urging governments to back BDS, the report recommends that the UN and its member states should "revive the Special Committee against Apartheid, and the United Nations Centre Against Apartheid (1976-1991)", which would then "report authoritatively on Israeli practices and policies relating to the crime of apartheid".

The report also suggests an advisory opinion be sought from the International Court of Justice "as to whether the means used by Israel to maintain control over the Palestinian people amount to the crime of apartheid"."
Small thing to celebrate in a time when any rigorous notion of evidence or system of verification (i.e judicial credibility) is under attack.

and:

"Bloopity bloop, you cheeto fuck.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39287656"

'A Federal judge in Hawaii has blocked President Donald Trump's new travel ban, hours before it was due to begin at midnight on Thursday'

I've not read about the legal proceedings, but hopefully as in the last time around, the court continued to take into account the president's virulently anti-muslim (which btw is the most prevalent form of anti-semitism) rhetoric when considering the merits of the government's claim to have a national security interest. According to the article:

"The text of the executive order, Judge Derrick Watson held, could not be separated from the context of the recent presidential campaign, "Muslim ban" rhetoric and all. An order that discriminates against some Muslims, he continued, is just as legally deficient as one that discriminates against them all."
 
Race is a spook, all race is is simply morphological differences in humans caused by differing mutation in humans as per the region their ancestors are from and the traits that were common among those who bred. People who think its anything more than just a means of drawing lines in the sand to divide humans are morons, something that I hope we can all agree on.

Yet, in today's age I can hop on Instagram and see pages posting shit about "white Europeans" and I sit back and ask myself, "how are these people any better than white nationalists they'd smash heads against, and what makes them think they are?" And then I realize its calling heads and tails on a coinflip to win the coin. Sure, you might be right, but what if the truth was the other side? What if you do win? You just won a fucking quarter.

Maybe if people would stop thinking that individuals are representative of the monolithic groups their identities are associated with, and that individuals are actually representative of their interest groups, we could make progress. Until then, monolithic groups can house snakes because they must be on the same side, they share our identity, right?
 

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

Top