Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Ottae

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

S0lo

Solo: In sixth form a friend of mine identified herself as "Romani gypsy" and I was under the impression that the term wasn't deemed offensive by people of that community. I'll avoid the term in future. The point I was making, which you conveniently sidestepped, is that people who regard themselves to be paragons of social justice are systematically ignoring certain communities, in particular the Jews against whom bigotry is alive and growing. I use this point to underscore that political correctness is far from perfect since noxious views against Israel are often at the heart of why people avoid openly sticking up for Jews today, but those aforementioned paragons of social justice are calling for wholesale social equality. It stinks of double standards, lack of awareness and outright ignorance, the same kind of thing PC advocates campaign against.

 

I'll say it again: I admire how passionate people are about social justice, but it just comes off as disingenuous when the same people who demand a fair society are themselves blind to certain forms of prejudice.

 

Sharqi: I'm pretty sure I've seen the term "New Age Traveller" somewhere but I dislike the term as many travelling communities are Christian and would probably not like to be labelled "New Age" with its pagan connotations. That video is bloody depressing by the way. I said it on the last page of this thread, the rudiments of Jewish history and religion need to be made standard in UK schools (Christianity, Hinduism and Islam are so this is is only fair).

 

But who is this uniform group of "PC advocates" you constantly mention? A club you can sign up for, where one of the terms of admission is a disregard for jewish issues? Is it a specific, defined school of thought? Or is it just a label you slap on people to devaluate the relevance of their points without having to actually discuss them?

 

I think i get what you are on about, but creating such clear-cut opposition groups (PC advocates, paragons of social justice) simply by terminology does not make them a real life thing. I would say that i fall on that side in the discussion so far, but i've also given a great deal of thought to antisemism, which you had no way of knowing up your post, simply because it wasn't the scope of the discussion. Should i have been like: "PC is for the most part just common decency. Also, antisemitism. It's bad, m'kay?" for you to recognize the relevance the point i was making?

Edited by S0lo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

We just had a great example in this thread of PC going too far and being needless. Gypsy isn't a derogatory term or a slur. Gyppo, gyp-hog or pikey are generally considered as such, but gypsy isn't. Not all of them use it, and some prefer other terms, but a lot do use it and prefer it. And no not in the same way that black people call themselves niggas.

Sorry, I rarely call something pc unless I mean made deliberately to avoid offending anyone. I never said it was an inferior term to traveller or whatever else, I think maybe I had the word 'pikey' in my mind when I thought about it so I went OTT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Since when is 'gypsy' not a derogatory term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

Since when is 'gypsy' not a derogatory term?

Oh f*cks sake I don't even know anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

Pretty sure it's not a derogatory term in the UK, don't know about elsewhere. Like I said we've got stuff like pikey or gippo for actual pejoratives, whereas gypsy is just a proper descriptive term which a lot of them use themselves, that or "travellers". We've got TV programmes about gypsies with "gypsy" in the title, and there have been complaints about those programmes but the complaints are about the way they're portrayed not the fact they're called gypsies. They've got groups and organisations that have gypsy in the title. And not in the same way the NAACP uses "coloured" in it's title.

 

Gypsy ain't no slur, lot's of people just hate gypsies and gypsy can be used pejoratively, but so can lot's of proper terms. It's the same with Jews, people might use "Jew" pejoratively but it's not a slur. Although I have met people that think it's racist to use the word "Jew".

Edited by stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Pretty sure it's not a derogatory term in the UK, don't know about elsewhere. Like I said we've got stuff like pikey or gippo for actual pejoratives, whereas gypsy is just a proper descriptive term which a lot of them use themselves, that or "travellers". We've got TV programmes about gypsies with "gypsy" in the title, and there have been complaints about those programmes but the complaints are about the way they're portrayed not the fact they're called gypsies. They've got groups and organisations that have gypsy in the title. And not in the same way the NAACP uses "coloured" in it's title.

 

Gypsy ain't no slur, lot's of people just hate gypsies and gypsy can be used pejoratively, but so can lot's of proper terms. It's the same with Jews, people might use "Jew" pejoratively but it's not a slur. Although I have met people that think it's racist to use the word "Jew".

...

 

Are you talking about Irish travellers? Because "gypsy" is an uncontroversially derogatory term for Roma. As I understand it, there are no reality shows about the Roma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Because it is divisive. The notion that we need to paint issues by race is by definition racist and yes, divisive.

No, the fact that people are divided by race- and the fact that society even has a concept of race- is divisive. Pointing it out is only divisive if you think pretending race doesn't exist is a good idea. Nobody would reasonable suggest that it is.

 

 

 

It isn't just black people who live in entrenched poverty. There are people of all races that face it. Making it into a race issue is just aimless and unproductive. Let's not talk about how we can pander to people by pitting them against one another, but instead let's discuss how we can actually fix entrenched poverty.

Right, except only black people face poverty because of their race. "Let's all come together to deal with poverty and forget about race" is a completely ridiculous statement, because black people are in poverty for completely different reasons (the issues faced by a black ghetto are completely different from those faced by a white trailer park or whatever), and many racial issues have nothing to do with poverty. If a middle class African-American still gets harassed by cops and pays much more for housing, and is less likely to be hired, there are obviously racial issues at play that have nothing to do with "entrenched poverty."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cucked Alex Jones

Blacks and other minorities have far higher rates of poverty than whites because of lack of access, for various reasons, to economic and educational opportunities. If you want to lift these groups out of poverty you need to address the issues that are holding them back from economic advancement. Burying your head in the sandand pretending America is living in a post racial society will not help the people who face subtle or sometimes even out right discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
No, the fact that people are divided by race- and the fact that society even has a concept of race- is divisive. Pointing it out is only divisive if you think pretending race doesn't exist is a good idea. Nobody would reasonable suggest that it is.

I don't think pretending it doesn't exist is the idea here, but rather it is something we need to move past. Melchior, we've done this for the past 40-50 years. Affirmative action has been somewhat successful but all in all, it hasn't done much to totally fix the problem and you've said that yourself. I know that black people are more highly exposed to what you discuss, but continuing to treat them as separate is not the solution. We don't need more of the same here. Affirmative action/targeted welfare has done nothing but create discontent amongst other races and destroy any hope of fixing the problem. Hispanics and Asians have both done extensively well in terms of wealth and education growth (Asians now have a higher average income than Whites), but African-Americans have not. We can sit here and blame that on White people all we want, but that doesn't get us to a solution. What are the unique factors affecting African-Americans? How come other minorities have been able to achieve greater social mobility? Can you treat this with a policy prescription that doesn't just continue to treat them as a second or even third class of people, who need more and more "special policies"? I'm convinced that it won't. As I said above, that's what we've done for the past half a century and it hasn't brought us to a solution.

 

 

 

As for this talk on gypsies, I don't know much about it either way but I don't think it is an offensive term. If you read any academic literature Roma are frequently referred to as gypsies, historical info on the holocaust refers to gypsies as being persecuted, the Holocaust Museum in DC says "gypsies/Roma". Again seems like another example of you guys getting offended on other people's behalf. Good thing they have upper class white people getting offended for them.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S0lo

 

No, the fact that people are divided by race- and the fact that society even has a concept of race- is divisive. Pointing it out is only divisive if you think pretending race doesn't exist is a good idea. Nobody would reasonable suggest that it is.

I don't think pretending it doesn't exist is the idea here, but rather it is something we need to move past. Melchior, we've done this for the past 40-50 years. Affirmative action has been somewhat successful but all in all, it hasn't done much to totally fix the problem and you've said that yourself. I know that black people are more highly exposed to what you discuss, but continuing to treat them as separate is not the solution. We don't need more of the same here. Affirmative action/targeted welfare has done nothing but create discontent amongst other races and destroy any hope of fixing the problem. Hispanics and Asians have both done extensively well in terms of wealth and education growth (Asians now have a higher average income than Whites), but African-Americans have not. We can sit here and blame that on White people all we want, but that doesn't get us to a solution. What are the unique factors affecting African-Americans? How come other minorities have been able to achieve greater social mobility? Can you treat this with a policy prescription that doesn't just continue to treat them as a second or even third class of people, who need more and more "special policies"? I'm convinced that it won't. As I said above, that's what we've done for the past half a century and it hasn't brought us to a solution.

 

 

 

As for this talk on gypsies, I don't know much about it either way but I don't think it is an offensive term. If you read any academic literature Roma are frequently referred to as gypsies, historical info on the holocaust refers to gypsies as being persecuted, the Holocaust Museum in DC says "gypsies/Roma". Again seems like another example of you guys getting offended on other people's behalf. Good thing they have upper class white people getting offended for them.

 

 

you can call me a lot of things, upper class is definitely not one of them. as for the rest of your asinine argumentation about social mobility,,, Latino, and especially Asian immigrants to the US got a whole different history of immigration than the Black community that is predominantly made of the descendants of slaves. The common wealth of the first two, as well as intact social structures that were imported alongside their immigration, done a great deal further their advancement, where as black communities basically had to start with absolutely nothing after slavery and segregation. Many asian communities have complex business sharing structures, where money is concentrated to build up businesses that all of them profit from. I could go on, but deaf ears won't listen anyway, i'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

No, the fact that people are divided by race- and the fact that society even has a concept of race- is divisive. Pointing it out is only divisive if you think pretending race doesn't exist is a good idea. Nobody would reasonable suggest that it is.

I don't think pretending it doesn't exist is the idea here, but rather it is something we need to move past. Melchior, we've done this for the past 40-50 years. Affirmative action has been somewhat successful but all in all, it hasn't done much to totally fix the problem and you've said that yourself. I know that black people are more highly exposed to what you discuss, but continuing to treat them as separate is not the solution. We don't need more of the same here. Affirmative action/targeted welfare has done nothing but create discontent amongst other races and destroy any hope of fixing the problem. Hispanics and Asians have both done extensively well in terms of wealth and education growth (Asians now have a higher average income than Whites), but African-Americans have not. We can sit here and blame that on White people all we want, but that doesn't get us to a solution. What are the unique factors affecting African-Americans? How come other minorities have been able to achieve greater social mobility? Can you treat this with a policy prescription that doesn't just continue to treat them as a second or even third class of people, who need more and more "special policies"? I'm convinced that it won't. As I said above, that's what we've done for the past half a century and it hasn't brought us to a solution.

 

 

 

As for this talk on gypsies, I don't know much about it either way but I don't think it is an offensive term. If you read any academic literature Roma are frequently referred to as gypsies, historical info on the holocaust refers to gypsies as being persecuted, the Holocaust Museum in DC says "gypsies/Roma". Again seems like another example of you guys getting offended on other people's behalf. Good thing they have upper class white people getting offended for them.

 

 

you can call me a lot of things, upper class is definitely not one of them. as for the rest of your asinine argumentation about social mobility,,, Latino, and especially Asian immigrants to the US got a whole different history of immigration than the Black community that is predominantly made of the descendants of slaves. The common wealth of the first two, as well as intact social structures that were imported alongside their immigration, done a great deal further their advancement, where as black communities basically had to start with absolutely nothing after slavery and segregation. Many asian communities have complex business sharing structures, where money is concentrated to build up businesses that all of them profit from. I could go on, but deaf ears won't listen anyway, i'm afraid.

 

So what you're saying is, we need to continue this policy of trying to afford special rights/benefits to black Americans to get them out of poverty? Because as I said before, we've done affirmative action for a long time now and it has yet to fix the problems we have.

 

 

Thought this article is timely given the subject of this post. - http://ti.me/1ADzyvQ

 

"Harlem-born rapper Azealia Banks has some trenchant criticism for Middle America in the April 2015 Playboy cover story, assailingeveryone from “fat white Americans” to black musicians, most of whom fail to meet her grade."

 

If Eminem came out and said "I hate fat black Americans", there'd be uproar. Again displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S0lo

 

So what you're saying is, we need to continue this policy of trying to afford special rights/benefits to black Americans to get them out of poverty? Because as I said before, we've done affirmative action for a long time now and it has yet to fix the problems we have.

 

 

Thought this article is timely given the subject of this post. - http://ti.me/1ADzyvQ

 

"Harlem-born rapper Azealia Banks has some trenchant criticism for Middle America in the April 2015 Playboy cover story, assailingeveryone from “fat white Americans” to black musicians, most of whom fail to meet her grade."

 

If Eminem came out and said "I hate fat black Americans", there'd be uproar. Again displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness.

 

 

How is one rapper's song "displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness?".I'd also argue that black rage about white america comes from a much more logical place than vice versa, given the whole f*cked up history of black america, but even if that wasn't so it is just one song by one person, proving exactly nothing. You're really grasping now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrownBear

Pretty sure it's not a derogatory term in the UK, don't know about elsewhere. Like I said we've got stuff like pikey or gippo for actual pejoratives, whereas gypsy is just a proper descriptive term which a lot of them use themselves, that or "travellers". We've got TV programmes about gypsies with "gypsy" in the title, and there have been complaints about those programmes but the complaints are about the way they're portrayed not the fact they're called gypsies. They've got groups and organisations that have gypsy in the title. And not in the same way the NAACP uses "coloured" in it's title.

 

Gypsy ain't no slur, lot's of people just hate gypsies and gypsy can be used pejoratively, but so can lot's of proper terms. It's the same with Jews, people might use "Jew" pejoratively but it's not a slur. Although I have met people that think it's racist to use the word "Jew".

I agree with that, here at least, I wouldn't consider it offensive. A lot of the Travellers I've met would refer to themselves firstly as Gypsies. Then again, insults like Tinker and Piker only really apply to Irish Travellers, so Romani may well find it offensive.

When you use the term Gypsy here though, it's generally referring to Irish Travellers, so for the most part it's not an offensive term here.

 

Also, New Age Travellers are hippies who go around in caravans and go to free parties across the country. Definitely not a religious or ethnic group, Crusties is another name for them, maybe they're a British phenomenon.

Edited by BrownBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

 

 

So what you're saying is, we need to continue this policy of trying to afford special rights/benefits to black Americans to get them out of poverty? Because as I said before, we've done affirmative action for a long time now and it has yet to fix the problems we have.

 

 

Thought this article is timely given the subject of this post. - http://ti.me/1ADzyvQ

 

"Harlem-born rapper Azealia Banks has some trenchant criticism for Middle America in the April 2015 Playboy cover story, assailingeveryone from “fat white Americans” to black musicians, most of whom fail to meet her grade."

 

If Eminem came out and said "I hate fat black Americans", there'd be uproar. Again displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness.

 

 

How is one rapper's song "displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness?".I'd also argue that black rage about white america comes from a much more logical place than vice versa, given the whole f*cked up history of black america, but even if that wasn't so it is just one song by one person, proving exactly nothing. You're really grasping now.

 

I think the argument was that fledging artists face dual pressures to conform to white expectations if they are to have any success in society, pressure from those that wield power with complete freedom, and from those that have willingly conformed to white expectations before, thus in some way sacrificing some measure of their cultural heritage for economic advancement. However, the labelling of fat whites is a banal stereotype - funny that it would be brought up in such a furore, I thought you were okay with these kinds of jokes. Seriously though, that is kind of prejudiced. Regarding the Muslim statement, I think too some sensitivity could have been practised; the artists she was commenting on may have been Muslim but really unless she wanted to comment on religion in a derogatory way I see no reason why she would bring it up.

 

It is nice that you went out of your way to move the subject onto terms of welfare provision and affirmative action, which is clearly your subconscious view of equality of the races in America; 'they only got there because we allowed them to be there' with no possibility that they could be advanced by their merits were society to treat them fairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

 

 

So what you're saying is, we need to continue this policy of trying to afford special rights/benefits to black Americans to get them out of poverty? Because as I said before, we've done affirmative action for a long time now and it has yet to fix the problems we have.

 

 

Thought this article is timely given the subject of this post. - http://ti.me/1ADzyvQ

 

"Harlem-born rapper Azealia Banks has some trenchant criticism for Middle America in the April 2015 Playboy cover story, assailingeveryone from fat white Americans to black musicians, most of whom fail to meet her grade."

 

If Eminem came out and said "I hate fat black Americans", there'd be uproar. Again displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness.

 

How is one rapper's song "displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness?".I'd also argue that black rage about white america comes from a much more logical place than vice versa, given the whole f*cked up history of black america, but even if that wasn't so it is just one song by one person, proving exactly nothing. You're really grasping now.

It's not her song, it's a statement she gave in an interview. This isn't an artistic license issue. How is what she says not racist? Please enlighten me.

 

Sharq I am ok with those jokes, but she isn't joking. She's flat out being a racist. This is no different than a white artist saying he or she is sick of "fat black people", it really isn't. i don't consider what she says offensive at all, because she's just an ignorant woman whose music happens to pale in comparison to the black artists she thinks are "too white". , but rather I'm merely pointing out that were the situation flipped, and a white artist said what she did about blacks, there would be uproar, lost sponsorships, contracts voided.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Share Sharqi

 

 

 

So what you're saying is, we need to continue this policy of trying to afford special rights/benefits to black Americans to get them out of poverty? Because as I said before, we've done affirmative action for a long time now and it has yet to fix the problems we have.

 

 

Thought this article is timely given the subject of this post. - http://ti.me/1ADzyvQ

 

"Harlem-born rapper Azealia Banks has some trenchant criticism for Middle America in the April 2015 Playboy cover story, assailingeveryone from fat white Americans to black musicians, most of whom fail to meet her grade."

 

If Eminem came out and said "I hate fat black Americans", there'd be uproar. Again displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness.

 

How is one rapper's song "displaying how there is a double standard to political correctness?".I'd also argue that black rage about white america comes from a much more logical place than vice versa, given the whole f*cked up history of black america, but even if that wasn't so it is just one song by one person, proving exactly nothing. You're really grasping now.

It's not her song, it's a statement she gave in an interview. This isn't an artistic license issue. How is what she says not racist? Please enlighten me.

 

Sharq I am ok with those jokes, but she isn't joking. She's flat out being a racist. This is no different than a white artist saying he or she is sick of "fat black people", it really isn't. i don't consider what she says offensive at all, because she's just an ignorant woman whose music happens to pale in comparison to the black artists she thinks are "too white". , but rather I'm merely pointing out that were the situation flipped, and a white artist said what she did about blacks, there would be uproar, lost sponsorships, contracts voided.

 

Nah, the flipped version would be Iggy Azalea is 'too African-American' for a Caucasian-Australian. Iggy Azalea, who knows nothing about the culture of rap and hip-hop; as far as I can see she can't sing for sh*t, making it the only genre where she can 'talk' her way through a career. So it is to say perhaps if you know nothing of one culture's way of life, why would you emulate it instead of representing your own.

To say such a thing would not suggest that 'blackness' is bad, but rather there is an issue of entitlement in the latter example at least, and just pointing out that there is a difference in culture. It is not an insult against African-Americans but an argument against the appropriation of another culture's mannerisms. The same as the way people might not take a white Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Buddist as seriously because we see those things as part of a different culture. I think if other cultures would be opposed to you adopting its mannerisms it would be offensive to continue to do so, but to appreciate it is no crime.

 

I do think I made concession previously to the prejudicial manner in which banal stereotypes were employed against white people, but it is difficult for a black person to be racist. Racism is about a system of control and disadvantage that favours a particular group (or groups) - what power exactly does this Azalea Banks have to the detriment of white people everywhere? I bet she probably said some interesting contextualising things beforehand and indeed afterwards but typically the white dominated media had to jump on that sh*t like it was a first-come-first-served example of 'blacks can be racist too'.

Edited by Share Sharqi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

I don't think pretending it doesn't exist is the idea here, but rather it is something we need to move past.

Yes, we should move past the idea of race by dismantling societal racialism and to do that we need to recognise it.

 

 

 

Melchior, we've done this for the past 40-50 years. Affirmative action has been somewhat successful but all in all, it hasn't done much to totally fix the problem and you've said that yourself.

Nobody would reasonably suggest that affirmative action can deracialise society- it's not even intended to. It's just supposed to increase employment opportunities, given how African-Americans are consistently overlooked for jobs regardless of their qualifications. If real estate agents jack up the price of a house whenever a black couple walks in, and Hollywood consistently refuses to make movies where a white woman ends up with a black man, no amount of positive discrimination on Earth is going to fix that. We need to stop being racist, and eliminate a culture where real estate agents are fair to assume that nobody wants blacks in the suburbs, and Hollywood to assume that nobody will see a movie about an interracial couple. And in order to do that we must recognise that such a culture exists, we have to recognise that we're racist.

 

 

 

Hispanics and Asians have both done extensively well in terms of wealth and education growth (Asians now have a higher average income than Whites), but African-Americans have not. We can sit here and blame that on White people all we want, but that doesn't get us to a solution. What are the unique factors affecting African-Americans? How come other minorities have been able to achieve greater social mobility? Can you treat this with a policy prescription that doesn't just continue to treat them as a second or even third class of people, who need more and more "special policies"? I'm convinced that it won't.

Solo already drove home the absurdity of this comparison. "One came in planes, the other, in chains."

 

I think Capitalism is inherently racist and its associated individualist dogma is used to justify one group starting with nothing- former slaves, and especially colonised people- having to compete with another. I think we should simply burn this racist system to the ground and build a better and more equitable one in its place. That said, it's probably possible to deracialise society within the confides of the current system if the political will is there.

 

I wouldn't do this by pretending race doesn't exist; I'm not sure how that's supposed to help? Dealing with poverty more broadly might lift a lot of blacks out of poverty but the issues of access to housing, unfair treatment by law enforcement and lack of cultural representation still exist. I'd say if anything we should look to expand positive discrimination policies like AA, incentivise corporations to put blacks in positions of power, crack down on any form of racism in government and business, and embark on a huge propaganda campaign, something more than a few posters.

She's flat out being a racist. This is no different than a white artist saying he or she is sick of "fat black people", it really isn't. i don't consider what she says offensive at all, because she's just an ignorant woman whose music happens to pale in comparison to the black artists she thinks are "too white". , but rather I'm merely pointing out that were the situation flipped, and a white artist said what she did about blacks, there would be uproar, lost sponsorships, contracts voided.

 

Nobody flips about because they don't give a f*ck. I definitely don't give a f*ck. She hates white people? What is she gonna do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

Nobody would reasonably suggest that affirmative action can deracialise society- it's not even intended to. It's just supposed to increase employment opportunities, given how African-Americans are consistently overlooked for jobs regardless of their qualifications. If real estate agents jack up the price of a house whenever a black couple walks in, and Hollywood consistently refuses to make movies where a white woman ends up with a black man, no amount of positive discrimination on Earth is going to fix that. We need to stop being racist, and eliminate a culture where real estate agents are fair to assume that nobody wants blacks in the suburbs, and Hollywood to assume that nobody will see a movie about an interracial couple. And in order to do that we must recognise that such a culture exists, we have to recognise that we're racist. I wouldn't do this by pretending race doesn't exist; I'm not sure how that's supposed to help? Dealing with poverty more broadly might lift a lot of blacks out of poverty but the issues of access to housing, unfair treatment by law enforcement and lack of cultural representation still exist. I'd say if anything we should look to expand positive discrimination policies like AA, incentivise corporations to put blacks in positions of power, crack down on any form of racism in government and business, and embark on a huge propaganda campaign, something more than a few posters.

 

I'm not saying this isn't an issue, but how exactly is affirmative action supposed to stop that? What you're not getting is that affirmative action worsens race relations. Great, you want to make it so it's government mandated that you have 10% blacks in C level positions? Congratulations, you've just set back race relations 50 years and made people really dislike blacks. Make it cheaper for a black family to buy a house, maybe with gov. subsidies to make up for what you're claiming happens in real estate? Again, you've just made people have a reason to hate black people. Affirmative action may make them better represented, but it won't help race relations when you have perfectly qualified people of other races being forced out of work or house opportunities. Further, I have a big problem with giving people something for nothing. Why should you give it to all blacks, and not just the ones in entrenched poverty? I grew up in a very well off neighborhood, and so did many black friends of mine in the same neighborhood, and yet they benefited from the same AA policies that inner city black kids who truly need it did. They laughed about it then and I even said hey if you can check that box then f*cking check it. But it doesn't mean it's right.


 

 


Solo already drove home the absurdity of this comparison. "One came in planes, the other, in chains."

 

I'm sorry but that doesn't excuse a lot of what we see in the black community. Overreliance on welfare, high rate of crime and drug abuse, and that's ok since they were slaves 150 years ago?

 

Watch a bit of what this guy has to say. He really made me turn around my opinion on this stuff along with other successful black people singing the same tune.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpsQwl_19M4

 

 

 

Nobody flips about because they don't give a f*ck. I definitely don't give a f*ck. She hates white people? What is she gonna do about it?

You're missing the point. It's a double standard. If that were a white rapper saying I hate black people it would've been a f*cking news circus.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrownBear

 

This feels relevant. This guys a rapper with a lot of other interesting videos and songs regarding race and politics, check him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

People with foreign weird sounding names getting teased or feeling embarrassed isn't racism. Anyone with an uncommon name gets that. There were kids at my school with first names like Blue, Terrence, Oswald and they got teased because of their names. Famous people often give their kids weird names and get mocked. He brought up skin whitening, but there are also plenty of people who try make their skin darker. Again not racism. As for negative criminal stereotypes, if a group of people get upset about people pointing out they have an excessively high crime rate, maybe they shouldn't have an excessively high crime rate to begin with. I live in Hull, and it has a lot of negative stereotypes and people judge it, but it does have high unemployment, crime, deprivation etc. It's ridiculous to say "how dare you point that out stop, being oppressive".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrownBear

People with foreign weird sounding names getting teased or feeling embarrassed isn't racism. Anyone with an uncommon name gets that. There were kids at my school with first names like Blue, Terrence, Oswald and they got teased because of their names. Famous people often give their kids weird names and get mocked. He brought up skin whitening, but there are also plenty of people who try make their skin darker. Again not racism. As for negative criminal stereotypes, if a group of people get upset about people pointing out they have an excessively high crime rate, maybe they shouldn't have an excessively high crime rate to begin with. I live in Hull, and it has a lot of negative stereotypes and people judge it, but it does have high unemployment, crime, deprivation etc. It's ridiculous to say "how dare you point that out stop, being oppressive".

Alright, I accept that about the names, but he's talking more about kids viewing their race as negative rather than the kids being racist.

 

I disagree with that. White people tanning themselves is not the same as Africans bleaching their skin. White people tan themselves because it's a fashion and because it's associated with being healthy etc. Africans bleach their because it is an engrained belief there that the lighter skinned you are the more respectable you are, this is a direct result of colonialism where lighter skinned ethnic groups with more European features and mixed race Africans were treated better and had a higher status in society. You could probably argue whether it's to do with race in China, as it been a part of their culture for ages.

 

Come on now, don't be ridiculous. Crime is a direct result of socio-economic factors it's got nothing to do with race, the UKs a perfect example of this where some of the most crime ridden areas are in all white areas up north and in Scotland. So you're saying all black people should be viewed by authority with suspicion, because they are disproportionately drawn to crime due to social factors? How'd you like it if you were treated with genuine hostility and prejudice because you're from Hull? It's really no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Bear, his point went straight over your head there. He's not saying, nor have I not anybody else arguing the same position, that black people are inherently drawn to crime due to genetics or whatever. We're simply pointing out the cold hard reality that they do commit an extremely disproportionate amount of crime, and that's a problem. Yes, it's due to societal factors. But that doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrownBear

Bear, his point went straight over your head there. He's not saying, nor have I not anybody else arguing the same position, that black people are inherently drawn to crime due to genetics or whatever. We're simply pointing out the cold hard reality that they do commit an extremely disproportionate amount of crime, and that's a problem. Yes, it's due to societal factors. But that doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

I didn't really think that was the main point he was making, but the wording portrayed it like that.

 

They are involved disproportionately in criminal activity, this is societal and economic like you say. It is undoubtedly an issue, an issue that needs to be dealt with by tackling the social problems in these communities, not viewing them with suspicion which leads to more and more issues.

I just don't understand how anyone can justify minorities being targeted for prejudice just because society's kicked them to the bottom of the pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

I wasn't saying it's ok to treat anyone with prejudice. The guy in the video seemed to be saying it's not ok to even bring it up that some groups have higher crime rates and that ethnicity shouldn't be reported or brought up when discussing crime. That's all I was saying: that that is ridiculous. That leads to situations like in Rotherham where the police didn't properly tackle the issue of Pakistani paedophile rings and even tried to cover it up because they didn't want to appear racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

Bear, his point went straight over your head there. He's not saying, nor have I not anybody else arguing the same position, that black people are inherently drawn to crime due to genetics or whatever. We're simply pointing out the cold hard reality that they do commit an extremely disproportionate amount of crime, and that's a problem. Yes, it's due to societal factors. But that doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

I didn't really think that was the main point he was making, but the wording portrayed it like that.

 

They are involved disproportionately in criminal activity, this is societal and economic like you say. It is undoubtedly an issue, an issue that needs to be dealt with by tackling the social problems in these communities, not viewing them with suspicion which leads to more and more issues.

I just don't understand how anyone can justify minorities being targeted for prejudice just because society's kicked them to the bottom of the pile.

 

Nobody is saying they need to be targeted with prejudice. But we need to recognize that the police have a job to do: respond to and deal with crime. It's not the job of the police department to fix societal issues. And when you have people calling the police racist because they have disproportionately high rates of interaction with people who disproportionately commit more crime, the issue is not helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reiniat

We used to have lots of jokes about how black people from USA got mad when we called them black people, it used to be the normal term for us, like if youre pale we might refer to you as "guero" and nobody is ever going to consider that racist (unless the tone and context imply it), its like calling your shirt blue because its f*cking blue.

And dont misunderstand me, most of us still have a polite mask when we are in public with people we dont know, so we speak correctly (correct mexican spanish is pretty much The Universal Spanish), and we had it long before this nonsense started....

 

Its almost funny to read trough this thread and find that gypsy is offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

I'm not saying this isn't an issue, but how exactly is affirmative action supposed to stop that? What you're not getting is that affirmative action worsens race relations.

Ugh, here we go.

 

Great, you want to make it so it's government mandated that you have 10% blacks in C level positions?

That sounds just awful, until you realize that just means white people still fill like, the vast majority of those positions, and that they still have much better odds at getting a job than a POC even with Affirmative Action.

 

Still I can't believe they wanna give those coloreds jobs. Where will I buy all my drugs? Get it? Because statistically, black people commit more crime, so like, all black people are criminals unless proven otherwise or w/e. I don't know, it's kind of twisted 'logic', but it makes sense if you don't think about it. Or like, you never think. At all.

 

 

 

Congratulations, you've just set back race relations 50 years and made people really dislike blacks.

Race relations haven't really improved in the past 50 years anyway, especially not when--according to your example--white people will hate black folks for holding an underwhelming portion of C level positions. I'd hazard to say that many white folks--yourself included--already really dislike black people. The problem isn't Affirmative Action though, it's a consequence of white supremacy.

 

Make it cheaper for a black family to buy a house, maybe with gov. subsidies to make up for what you're claiming happens in real estate?

'Claiming happens'

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-091

http://www.mpamag.com/real-estate/racial-discrimination-alive-in-housing-market-15332.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/realestate/racial-discrimination-in-renting.html?_r=0

https://www.ncsha.org/blog/study-highlights-racial-disparities-wealth-and-homeownership-rates

http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/107514/Chin_Racial%20Disparities%20in%20Homeownership.pdf?sequence=1

 

Again, you've just made people have a reason to hate black people.

Ridiculous.

 

 

Affirmative action may make them better represented, but it won't help race relations when you have perfectly qualified people of other races being forced out of work or house opportunities.

Which doesn't really seem to be happening at all.

 

 

Why should you give it to all blacks, and not just the ones in entrenched poverty? I grew up in a very well off neighborhood, and so did many black friends of mine in the same neighborhood, and yet they benefited from the same AA policies that inner city black kids who truly need it did. They laughed about it then and I even said hey if you can check that box then f*cking check it. But it doesn't mean it's right.

POC from well-off neighborhoods still face discrimination when seeking housing, employment, education, when dealing with the police, etc., but nice anecdote.

 

Overreliance on welfare

 

Just let em all starve, that's what I say. Let's just ignore the growing disparity of wealth between white folks and black folks, and that while 39.8% of welfare recipients are black, 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

 

 

high rate of crime and drug abuse

Drug abuse is not a race issue. White folks abuse drugs and alcohol at the same rate as black folks. Drug-related arrests, however, disproportionately affects POC, as they are more likely to be stopped.

 

 

Watch a bit of what this guy has to say. He really made me turn around my opinion on this stuff along with other successful black people singing the same tune.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpsQwl_19M4

 

Watch a bit of what this guy has to say. He really made me turn around my opinion on this stuff.

 

Edited by make total destroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

That sounds just awful, until you realize that just means white people still fill like, the vast majority of those positions, and that they still have much better odds at getting a job than a POC even with Affirmative Action.

 

 

Still I can't believe they wanna give those coloreds jobs. Where will I buy all my drugs? Get it? Because statistically, black people commit more crime, so like, all black people are criminals unless proven otherwise or w/e. I don't know, it's kind of twisted 'logic', but it makes sense if you don't think about it. Or like, you never think. At all.

 

 

 

 

 

So what? That doesn't matter. No corporation nor government entity should be legally mandated to hire certain people simply because of their race. If you really think that is going to help change race relations, then it's you who doesn't think. You think that the black man that worked his ass off his entire life to make it to the C level and sit on the Board of Directors of a company is going to be totally fine with another black person who simply gets the job because the law says the corporation has to? Even if the black person who gets the job is qualified, do you think they are going to be welcomed by their colleagues if they were forced to hire the guy/girl simply due to their color? There's a whole other element to this here that neither of you want to even consider.

 

 

 

 

 

 
Race relations haven't really improved in the past 50 years anyway, especially not when--according to your example--white people will hate black folks for holding an underwhelming portion of C level positions. I'd hazard to say that many white folks--yourself included--
already
really dislike black people. The problem isn't Affirmative Action though, it's a consequence of white supremacy.

 

Yeah, because in today's day and age black people can't sit on the front of the bus or train and can't attend the same schools as whites. Ok dude, it hasn't changed at all for 50 years. I ride the metro and bus almost every day and there are plenty of black people up front, but maybe up in New Jersey it's different and the fire hoses are still turned on them. And will you f*cking shut up with this bullsh*t that I and people who share my views dislike black people? You make yourself look like a f*cking idiot and accomplish nothing.

 

 

 

I didn't deny it happens, but there are explanations to this far beyond real estate agents saying "LOL I AINT SELLING THIS HOUSE TO A NEGRO FAMILY"...

 

 

 

Which doesn't really seem to be happening at all.

Agreed, but it would happen if you did what you and Melchior seem to think is a good idea - require corporations to put African-Americans into leadership positions, give subsidies just to black people, etc. Right now you have enough white people who don't get jobs blaming it on affirmative action and becoming disgruntled and racist. That will explode if you do what you want.

 

 

 

POC from well-off neighborhoods still face discrimination when seeking housing, employment, education, when dealing with the police, etc., but nice anecdote.

I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Perhaps to a slight extent but even then, it's negligible. I know plenty of guys from my area who are currently on free rides to colleges and whose parents drive Range Rovers, so again, not sure you're correct on this one. Maybe it's just Long Island, who knows. I really doubt it, though.

 

 

 

 

Just let em all starve, that's what I say. Let's just ignore the growing disparity of wealth between white folks and black folks, and that while 39.8% of welfare recipients are black, 38.8% of welfare recipients are white.

 

And the fact that African-Americans make up 12 percent of the population yet have the same percentage on welfare as Whites. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/20/1279118/-Black-People-on-Welfare-Let-s-Not-Sugarcoat-It). Welfare is fine, but there has to be limit. I don't care if you're black, white, orange, purple, or whatever. If you need welfare for more than 2 or 3 years then you are doing something very wrong. This generational bullsh*t has to end.

 

 

 

Drug abuse is not a race issue. White folks abuse drugs and alcohol at the same rate as black folks. Drug-related arrests, however, disproportionately affects POC, as they are more likely to be stopped.

Nice simple-minded way at looking at it, but nope. Yes, whites do abuse drugs and alcohol at the same rate. But the criminal element of that is not due to blacks being stopped more, but due to the fact that there are numerous other elements that come into play. Drugs plague black neighborhoods and fuel violence, which leads to more crime and thus more arrests. 70% of shootings in NYC are committed by African-Americans, more often than not in drug related disputes.

 

 

 

Watch a bit of what this guy has to say. He really made me turn around my opinion on this stuff.

 

Are you the person who calls Eric Holder race traitor for saying that Michael Brown was a criminal and was justifiably shot?

 

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeakyLine

I saw a commercial for some burger place yesterday.


It had 'Shout at the Devil' by Motley Crue playing.


Wouldn't you f*cking know it, that they cut out the 'Shout at the Devil' part?!


Al you hear is 'shout, shout, shout' and then a guitar riff.



I'm pretty much guessing this is due to the hardcore Christians who cry about ANYTHING like that.


This sh*t is going too motherf*cking far.



You can't ruin a f*cking classic just because of some f*cking religious nutcases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.