Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Interesting QuestionFollow

#52 Feb 20 2007 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I watched a lot of basic cable back in college.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Feb 20 2007 at 1:10 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I watched a lot of basic cable back in college.


They had tv back then?
#54 Feb 20 2007 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
MentalFrog wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I watched a lot of basic cable back in college.


They had tv back then?
6" black and white only.
#55 Feb 20 2007 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MentalFrog wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I watched a lot of basic cable back in college.
They had tv back then?
Duh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Feb 20 2007 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
I can't say much about the race thing, as I am of the caucasian persuasion myself, but I can say this...

1) I am an atheist.
2) I have been directly and indirectly been called many hateful things, and seen how atheists are marginalized and discriminated against in this country.
3) Hearing a christian say that christians in this country are "persecuted" pisses me off to no end.

Applying those 3 principles to other concepts like race and sexual orientation, at the very least gives me empathy toward the issues of other minorities in other situations.

#57 Feb 20 2007 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
As opposed to what? "Shows with Negros"? Do you really think that, if it had a different name, folks wouldn't still say "OMG they have BLACK shows but we don't have all WHITE shows!!"?

***** the name, are you against the concept of a channel specializing in collecting the narrow amount of black oriented programming into a single location?


Ummm, no. I'm simply referring to the double standard in what is considered PC terminology and practice. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Maybe you're reading too much into it. I'm not going to call strawman just yet but I'm not going to address any more points that I'm not making.

Edit: Ridana, I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. I've been discriminated against quite a bit because of my differences, even by my immediate family, and I consider those sorts of things far more integral to a person's being than their physical characteristics.

Edited, Feb 20th 2007 1:34pm by Kachi
#58 Feb 20 2007 at 1:33 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,784 posts
Nobby wrote:
Quote:
Do
Do-Doo
Do-Doo

Doop-doop-doop

Do
Do-Doo
Do-Doo

Doop-doop-doop

I said Hey Babe


You youngsters can scratch yer bonces over that one


Holly came from Miami F.l.a.?
#59 Feb 20 2007 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
Ummm, no. I'm simply referring to the double standard in what is considered PC terminology and practice. I don't think you get what I'm saying. Maybe you're reading too much into it. I'm not going to call strawman just yet but I'm not going to address any more points that I'm not making.
Fine. Explain exactly what is wrong with BET. So far, all I've gotten is "People would be mad if there was a WET".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Feb 20 2007 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I watched a lot of basic cable back in college.
They had tv back then?
Duh


Hmmm. I pictured it more like this.
#61 Feb 20 2007 at 1:37 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
@ Smasharoo, you had a good thing going. You could have had me baited and hooked for a long time but you contradicted yourself too many times for me to take you seriously. You could have had me drawn in. Play your cards better next time a foreigner comes along.
#62 Feb 20 2007 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Ummm, no. I'm simply referring to the double standard in what is considered PC terminology and practice. I don't think you get what I'm saying.


Of course we get it, moron. You're a white racist who feels bad about it and tries to justify with ludicrous arguments.

Not complicated at a all.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#63 Feb 20 2007 at 1:42 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Fine. Explain exactly what is wrong with BET. So far, all I've gotten is "People would be mad if there was a WET".


I already said; the name makes generalizations about what black people find entertaining, thus breeding stereotypes on both ends of the spectrum. (i.e., young black people who otherwise had little or no interest in BET may be drawn to it because the name suggests it's for them and those are the shows that black people watch; other races may assume the same things... many black people do not find that programming any more or less entertaining than white people would).

I even said myself it wasn't a big deal; I was thinking more in regards to establishments which are actually and truly "black-only" than a television station which is available to all people equally.
#64 Feb 20 2007 at 1:43 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Of course we get it, moron. You're a white racist who feels bad about it and tries to justify with ludicrous arguments.

Not complicated at a all.


See above.
#65 Feb 20 2007 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
I already said; the name makes generalizations about what black people find entertaining, thus breeding stereotypes on both ends of the spectrum.
Well, I think you're wrong on this and I guess that's our disconnect.

It's "Entertainment" -- comedy, drama, music, talk shows, etc. It's by blacks. Hence, "Black Entertainment". No different than "Black literature" or "Black history" except that "entertainment" is a wider catagory.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Feb 20 2007 at 2:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Nobby wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
I'm not a racist but they come over here and take all our jobs.

I'm not a homophobe, but do they have to kiss each other?
Gotcha there ickle Miss Goebbels.

Point well made Smiley: oyvey



Uhm, huh?

Noone's taking my job. Where the heck did you get that from? I'm just pointing out that there is a double standard, it's not a big deal, but it is there.

I don't care if they kiss each other. I wouldn't want to see a parade of straight people acting that way so why is it ok for gay people to act that way. You got me WAAAAY wrong. I spent new years 2 years ago as one of 3 straight people at a gay new years party, (it was an awesome party too, gay people really know how to party) this isn't about being disturbed by gayness, it's about appropriate behaviour in a public place. Have you ever watched these parades? They're bad, like real bad. Those kind of acts should be kept to your kitchen table or the top of the washing machine.
#67 Feb 20 2007 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Now I feel all pissy at my double standards
That's OK.

At least you didn't have to see jews kissing.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#68 Feb 20 2007 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yodabunny wrote:
Have you ever watched these parades?
Gay Rights Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Feb 20 2007 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Thank goodness for good 'ol wikipedia. I was searching for a specific term, and it completely eluded me. Here it is:
Quote:
Aversive racism refers to the "subtle, unintentional form of bias that is presumed to characterize a substantial proportion of White liberals."[13]

Because they have internalized liberal egalitarian values, aversive racists consider themselves non-prejudiced, even though they have unconscious racist feelings, and sometimes express them. "Thus, aversive racists are able to discriminate without acknowledging their prejudice because they excuse or justify their behavior on ‘reasonable’ grounds”


I understand people who want to say they are totally colorblind as proof that they don't hold one race over another, but there has to be a middle ground between putting your hands over your eyes and refusing to acknowledge that people harbor any cultural differences, and outright hating them for said differences. I remember the innate discomfort I felt when being asked once where I was from. I answered "Peru" without thinking, and the man asking fell all over himself saying "I didn't need to know that, I don't care." He was obviously very uncomfortable, and I wasn't sure why.

euroamerican.org wrote:
Colorblind white people see racist white people pretty much for what they are, and that "something" is not what colorblind white people want to be. But colorblind white people more often than not are ineffective in working to undo the racist model. Unable to see race, they cannot see racism. Blind to color, they are blind to white culture as well. In a racially structured society they are unable to change a structure they fail to see. Rather, they rely on simplistic rules. To be conscious of race, a colorblind person will say, is to be racist. To the colorblind person the racist and the race savvy person seem to be the same. They both see race after all.

The race savvy white person understands what the colorblind white person does not. Being white makes a difference. Whiteness forms the center of our society and as long as it does, we cannot have a society centered on multiracial values. The irony of colorblindness is that by not seeing whiteness, it keeps whiteness centered. In this the racists might find some small ray of hope.
#70 Feb 20 2007 at 2:31 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Have you ever watched these parades?
Gay Rights Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years


This is what I'm talking about. No problem with people being gay, don't care. Problem with parades like this.
#71 Feb 20 2007 at 2:36 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Have you ever watched these parades?
Gay Rights Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years


This is what I'm talking about. No problem with people being gay, don't care. Problem with parades like this.


Smiley: lol


Woosh.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#72 Feb 20 2007 at 2:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I answered "Peru" without thinking, and the man asking fell all over himself saying "I didn't need to know that, I don't care." He was obviously very uncomfortable, and I wasn't sure why.


He didn't ask you where to score high quality flake?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#73 Feb 20 2007 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
bodhisattva wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Have you ever watched these parades?
Gay Rights Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years


This is what I'm talking about. No problem with people being gay, don't care. Problem with parades like this.


Smiley: lol


Woosh.


Indeed. That's just precious.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#74 Feb 20 2007 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Samira wrote:
bodhisattva wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Have you ever watched these parades?
Gay Rights Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years


This is what I'm talking about. No problem with people being gay, don't care. Problem with parades like this.


Smiley: lol


Woosh.


Indeed. That's just precious.
She's just upholding the American right for people to do whatevet they like (providing they do it in private and outwardly appear to be white, christian heterosexuals)
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#75 Feb 20 2007 at 3:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
And treating the Onion as a serious source at the same time!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#76 Feb 20 2007 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Samira wrote:
And treating the Onion as a serious source at the same time!
How Very Dare You!

The Onion is a bastion of Truth!

Like. . . Like. . . Fox!
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 295 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (295)