Results 1 to 24 of 24



Thread: united shades of america



(Users Browsing this Thread: )

  1. #1
    I'm a real user of women hutz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    11,792


    united shades of america

    watching a rerun of the premiere episode and i honestly havent laughed this hard this consistently in a while

  2. #2
    Junior Camper SuitOfDrugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    186
    Blog Entries
    11


    I was looking forward to that show, but, then the host of it was on the Late Show the other night, and in the interview he literally said that black people can't be racist, only white people can be racist. That if a black person hates white people then that's just prejudice (and he strongly implied that it's no big deal), it's not racism. But if a white person does/says/thinks anything prejudice against black people then that's racist. He says the reason for this is because whites have the power, and you can only be racist from a position of power. And he referenced black academics, to basically say that it is his position but he didn't come up with it he just agrees with these prominent academics.

    It was honestly unbelievable. First of all, it's a perversion of the English language. Hating white people (or anyone by race) is by definition racism.

    (As an aside, In my opinion, "racism" is just prejudice based on race. Meaning, if you think all egyptians bake really good cakes, that's racist. I hate how "racism" is taken to mean "hateful racism". Because it's sort of a broken part of our language. Does then "sexism" have to mean hateful sexism? Then what are the words for non-hateful prejudice based on race or sex?)

    Secondly, what he said is racist and prejudice (and stupid) because it assumes that ALL whites are in a position of power over blacks and no black people are in a position of power over any white people. Granted the majority of the time that's true especially in some places in the world like the USA, but it's not always true. Are there no black bosses in the world? To have that position is to give tacit approval to racism towards white people, because, it's ok, it's not actually racist. That just promotes hate in the world.

    So basically TIL that the host of united shades of america condones racism, and is an idiot, or just can't help but buy into certain bad cultural ideas instead of thinking for himself.

    EDIT: I discovered that apparently when he said 'racist' he was talking about the 'systematic racism' definition of racist, not the 'hateful racial prejudice' definition. If that's the case then he would not be condoning [hateful racial prejudice]. Also he would not be an idiot, and arguably I am the idiot for not realizing or considering the 'systematic racism' definition of the word and that he was probably intending it. Also it's not a perversion of the english language, you would only say that if you weren't aware of the other definition. What can I say, I have never particularly known or internalized that definition, because pretty much that's not what it means where I'm from. So that's how I ended up making that post and why a bunch of people railed against me below, and also because we didn't understand what each other was saying.

    Now that I have this clearer understanding, I still think it's sketchy for the guy to have said what he said, because I think a possible problem with him saying it is that it can be easily misinterpreted to mean that he was talking about 'hateful racial prejudice'. In that case it's a bad message, just like I was saying above. He can still appear to be condoning black on white hate filled racial prejudice if people think he meant 'racial prejudice' when he said racism. And they definitely could think that because that is one of it's meanings. That has two negative effects: one it could cause some black people to have more hateful racial prejudice towards whites because they think they are being told it's ok, and two it could alienate some white people, because obviously when understood that way it's pretty offensive and divisive.
    Last edited by SuitOfDrugs; 05-12-2016 at 04:27 PM. Reason: more on the parchment


  3. #3
    الذهاب المغيرين brad little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    11,237
    Blog Entries
    22


    we gonna play this game again huh

  4. #4
    I'm a real user of women hutz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    11,792


    yikes

  5. #5
    withered gas station rose Where's the lamb saaaauuuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,952


    Given Suitofdrugs description it sounds like my kind of show


  6. #6
    hi's closeface's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    2,366
    Blog Entries
    8


    i saw the host being interviewed on the daily show, and i must say that this looks interesting, i'll have to check it out.
    Quote Originally Posted by SuitOfDrugs View Post
    I was looking forward to that show, but, then the host of it was on the Late Show the other night, and in the interview he literally said that black people can't be racist, only white people can be racist. That if a black person hates white people then that's just prejudice (and he strongly implied that it's no big deal), it's not racism. But if a white person does/says/thinks anything prejudice against black people then that's racist. He says the reason for this is because whites have the power, and you can only be racist from a position of power. And he referenced black academics, to basically say that it is his position but he didn't come up with it he just agrees with these prominent academics.

    It was honestly unbelievable. First of all, it's a perversion of the English language. Hating white people (or anyone by race) is by definition racism.

    (As an aside, In my opinion, "racism" is just prejudice based on race. Meaning, if you think all egyptians bake really good cakes, that's racist. I hate how "racism" is taken to mean "hateful racism". Because it's sort of a broken part of our language. Does then "sexism" have to mean hateful sexism? Then what are the words for non-hateful prejudice based on race or sex?)

    Secondly, what he said is racist and prejudice (and stupid) because it assumes that ALL whites are in a position of power over blacks and no black people are in a position of power over any white people. Granted the majority of the time that's true especially in some places in the world like the USA, but it's not always true. Are there no black bosses in the world? To have that position is to give tacit approval to racism towards white people, because, it's ok, it's not actually racist. That just promotes hate in the world.

    So basically TIL that the host of united shades of america condones racism, and is an idiot, or just can't help but buy into certain bad cultural ideas instead of thinking for himself.
    this isn't exactly relevant to what you said, but here's a response i made to a similar post to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Nilbog View Post
    well of course radicalism is going to exist in feminist/anti racist etc movements. when people are opressing you, it's natural for you to make judgements about those people, even if they are unfair judgements. that's why, for example, muhummad ali once said that he could never understand why a person of colour would want to marry a white person, or even mix with white people, even though he later retracted these statements, and i 100% disagree with them, i understand why he believed them. it was white people who had enslaved them for hundreds of years, it was white people who had made up the jim crow laws and taken away black people's human rights. and because of this, many people of colour felt hostile towards white people. i guess it's like what ned was saying a few pages back about why naz shah/palestinians in general were making anti semetic comments. i am opposed to anti semitism in every way, shape and form. but when it's jewish people who are oppressing you, you may make unfair judgements about he jews. so although i don't think that ''all men should die'' (obviously, because i am one haha), i think that ''radical feminists'' and should be listened to, and not just labelled as ''crazies'' or ''social justice warriors''.

  7. #7
    withered gas station rose Where's the lamb saaaauuuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,952


    Love that oss thumb on what is probably the worst post of the year.

  8. #8
    Junior Camper SuitOfDrugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    186
    Blog Entries
    11


    I don't see what's wrong with my post [EDIT: actually now I do see the issue with it, as I explain above in the edit of my first post] (and no one has pointed out anything about it that they think is wrong), other than maybe it being too heavy for this forum or people not wanting to touch the topic of that guy claiming that "black people can't be racist", which is primarily what my post was about.

    @Nilbog, so, your quoted reply was to a post about 'feminists who are too radical', so I guess you are saying that what that guy said on the late show was too radical. I agree obviously. I do understand why some african americans would feel the way this guy feels. I wrote that I found it "unbelievable" that he was saying it, which could be seen to imply that I don't have that understanding. But the reason why that isn't the case is the context. If some random african american randomly made that comment, I would not say "wow, unbelievable". The reason why I found it unbelievable is because of the commercials I have seen for his new show which tout it as having an anti-racism message, that it's about trying to communicate with and understand people from all different backgrounds. If the show doesn't deviate from the what the commercials present, then it will be a show which takes a moral stance; a documentary show that takes a position, which is one of tolerance and anti-racism, etc. A positive show that also injects humor.

    And then the first thing the guy at the helm of this show does is go on late night tv and say that black people can't be racist and if they hate white people that's not racist. I didn't label him as crazy or a sjw, I just disagreed with one major thing he said and explained why.
    Last edited by SuitOfDrugs; 05-12-2016 at 04:33 PM.

  9. #9


    No ones pointed out why it's wrong because we have this discussion every month or so.

  10. Thumbs Up To This Post by: closeface

  11. #10
    withered gas station rose Where's the lamb saaaauuuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,952


    Remember that one time someone was racist against a white person? Oh wait that was never.

  12. Thumbs Up To This Post by: closeface

  13. #11
    Junior Camper SuitOfDrugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    186
    Blog Entries
    11


    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky Voiced Teen View Post
    No ones pointed out why it's wrong because we have this discussion every month or so.
    That's understandable (but there's nothing wrong with what I wrote btw) [EDIT: actually now I do see the issue with it, as I explain above in the edit of my first post]

    Quote Originally Posted by Old painty-can Ned View Post
    Remember that one time someone was racist against a white person? Oh wait that was never.
    It happens all the time, how can you be serious?

    [EDIT: I've learned that apparently when Ned says "racist" he is talking about systematic racism. I thought he meant racial prejudice. So now that I know what he probably meant, I can see how he is serious and I get it. Also when I said 'It happens all the time', I was talking about racial prejudice, not systematic racism.]
    Last edited by SuitOfDrugs; 05-12-2016 at 04:40 PM.

  14. #12
    coughing up snot Insomnia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    driveway
    Posts
    19,631
    Blog Entries
    42


    the thing is no one cares if you're racist against a white cause it's pretty much equivalent to a "first world problem" imo

  15. #13
    الذهاب المغيرين brad little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    11,237
    Blog Entries
    22


    reverse racism is just trying to make someone who has no business being the "victim" the victim. you can try and claim that racism exists towards white people, but at the end of the day white people still have the advantage, still have the upper hand, still get all the breaks.


  16. #14
    Junior Camper SuitOfDrugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    186
    Blog Entries
    11


    "Reverse racism" is a silly term. All racism is racism. It's a big world out there. There's lots of racism that goes on where there isn't even any white or black people involved. White people can have lots of advantages and the upper hand (although I think this becomes less true the poorer they are, but it's still largely true), but that doesn't mean that hating white people just because they are white isn't racist. Hating people from another race just because of their race is literally racist.

    [EDIT: I wrote the above with the understanding that racism means 'racial prejudice' and that's the only thing it means. I have since come to realize (much more clearly) that there's another definition that apparently everybody is using here, which is basically the 'systematic racism' definition. Aside from the first sentence, if you read the above post understanding that when I said racism I was talking about the racial prejudice definition of racism, then imo the post makes sense and what I wrote is right and I stand behind it. But since racism can mean the 'systematic racism' definition, now I see that my post can make no sense or be incorrect.

    As far as the term 'reverse racism', I thought it was silly because I thought it made no sense. After all, the reverse of 'racial prejudice' would be like... what, no racial prejudice? But given the multiple, sort of conflicting, definitions of racism, I don't think 'reverse racism' is a silly term, I just think it's a problematic, vague and confusing term because it basically relies on racism having only one definition, which isn't the case. But yeah, when it is meant to convey "reverse systematic racism" then yeah, obviously there is pretty much no such thing as reverse systematic racism, because that would require a different reality in which a different system exists. Probably some people might call things like affirmative action hiring reverse racism (as in systematic racism), and in a vacuum it could be considered that way, but in the whole system it's not, because all it's doing is trying to correct the unfair system by making it less unfair and more balanced. Hiring someone over someone else because of their race is racially prejudiced though, and under the 'racial prejudice' definition of racism you could say it's racist. Since most harmful racial prejudice is generally understood to be committed by whites against underprivileged non-whites (for good reasons), then if a non-white got hired over a white just because of race quotas or whatever, then you might call that 'reverse racism' and be correct (where reverse = opposite of the usual direction and racism = racial prejudice). Hence why I think 'reverse racism' is a crappy vague term (even more vague than 'racism').]
    Last edited by SuitOfDrugs; 05-12-2016 at 05:25 PM. Reason: more on the parchment

  17. #15
    Roger Waters Orthopedic Shoes Fat Psychopathic Wife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois.
    Posts
    833


    Quote Originally Posted by SuitOfDrugs View Post
    I was looking forward to that show, but, then the host of it was on the Late Show the other night, and in the interview he literally said that black people can't be racist, only white people can be racist. That if a black person hates white people then that's just prejudice (and he strongly implied that it's no big deal), it's not racism. But if a white person does/says/thinks anything prejudice against black people then that's racist. He says the reason for this is because whites have the power, and you can only be racist from a position of power. And he referenced black academics, to basically say that it is his position but he didn't come up with it he just agrees with these prominent academics.

    It was honestly unbelievable. First of all, it's a perversion of the English language. Hating white people (or anyone by race) is by definition racism.

    (As an aside, In my opinion, "racism" is just prejudice based on race. Meaning, if you think all egyptians bake really good cakes, that's racist. I hate how "racism" is taken to mean "hateful racism". Because it's sort of a broken part of our language. Does then "sexism" have to mean hateful sexism? Then what are the words for non-hateful prejudice based on race or sex?)

    Secondly, what he said is racist and prejudice (and stupid) because it assumes that ALL whites are in a position of power over blacks and no black people are in a position of power over any white people. Granted the majority of the time that's true especially in some places in the world like the USA, but it's not always true. Are there no black bosses in the world? To have that position is to give tacit approval to racism towards white people, because, it's ok, it's not actually racist. That just promotes hate in the world.

    So basically TIL that the host of united shades of america condones racism, and is an idiot, or just can't help but buy into certain bad cultural ideas instead of thinking for himself.
    As a black man, I just have to say... Shut cho ass up.

  18. #16
    ghoul foose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    water valley, ms
    Posts
    10,491
    Blog Entries
    125


    Quote Originally Posted by SuitOfDrugs View Post
    "Reverse racism" is a silly term. All racism is racism. It's a big world out there. There's lots of racism that goes on where there isn't even any white or black people involved. White people can have lots of advantages and the upper hand (although I think this becomes less true the poorer they are, but it's still largely true), but that doesn't mean that hating white people just because they are white isn't racist. Hating people from another race just because of their race is literally racist.
    you're basically ignoring the imbalance of the playing field but also what does rich/poor have to do with racial (white) privilege

    like im a rather poor white fella but thats not relevant to how ive literally never faced racism or even prejudice, to such an extent I took such matters for granted on a grand scale for quite awhile because I could not fathom their ubiquity nor their severity as a white dude who has never been reminded that he's white. THAT is white privilege, and with nary a dime to my name it wouldnt have been different either.


  19. #17
    Your Deer Friend ThatsAPrancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The Simpsons are going to Delaware!
    Posts
    4,690
    Blog Entries
    7


    Racial prejudice is not racism and does not carry the same weight. When the term "racism" was first coined, it was used to describe systems of racialized discrimination, not individual prejudice. Yes words evolve, but it's important to understand that we're not talking about the colloquial definition of racism (racially-based prejudice) but the definition used by social workers, academics, and groups who work against social injustice and monitor hate groups and extremism.

    Being poor doesn't erase white privilege. http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanada.../#729ce8d162f2
    Brrapt Brrapt Pew Pew!



  20. #18
    withered gas station rose Where's the lamb saaaauuuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,952


    Burn the dictionary

  21. #19
    Your Deer Friend ThatsAPrancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The Simpsons are going to Delaware!
    Posts
    4,690
    Blog Entries
    7


    Noo, I love reading dictionaries. Especially giant, unabridged editions. Though I do want this adorable little pink one:



  22. #20
    Junior Camper SuitOfDrugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    186
    Blog Entries
    11


    Quote Originally Posted by silent disco View Post
    you're basically ignoring the imbalance of the playing field but also what does rich/poor have to do with racial (white) privilege
    I'm not ignoring it, it's just that the imbalance of the playing field doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. The playing field can be very imbalanced (and it is, and I never said it wasn't), but hating people from another race just because of their race is still what I would call racist. After reading ThatsAPaddlin's reply below and reading a bunch of definitions, i guess nobody here understands what I was saying this whole time, because apparently I'm effectively using a different language than them.

    Rich/poor doesn't have much to do with white privilege. The reason I made the comment you are referring to is because super nintendo chalmers said "white people still have the advantage, still have the upper hand, still get all the breaks" and I was agreeing with that except with the caveat that I don't think the level of privilege is the same magnitude from the very rich to the very poor - because I can't say that some white homeless person has "all the breaks". I think they get some, I specifically said that it's still largely true that even a poor white person has lots of advantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsAPaddlin View Post
    Being poor doesn't erase white privilege. http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanada.../#729ce8d162f2
    I didn't say that being poor erases white privilege. I specifically said it's true that white people have lots of advantages even if they are poor. So we're already in agreement on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsAPaddlin View Post
    Racial prejudice is not racism and does not carry the same weight. When the term "racism" was first coined, it was used to describe systems of racialized discrimination, not individual prejudice. Yes words evolve, but it's important to understand that we're not talking about the colloquial definition of racism (racially-based prejudice) but the definition used by social workers, academics, and groups who work against social injustice and monitor hate groups and extremism.
    It's important to understand that I *was* talking about the "racially-based prejudice" definition of racism this entire time.

    Reading up on a lot of different definitions of racism, I don't really understand how we can have so many different definitions and still be able to communicate and understand each other as a society.

    ThatsAPaddlin, you say "racial prejudice is not racism", but, if I look up the word racism, one of the first definitions I find is "Discrimination or prejudice based on race". There are other definitions that support what you are saying. So according to the dictionaries we are both wrong and also right.

    I've never really considered your definition of it, which is apparently the way more popular definition here. I would usually call that something like "institutionalized racism", I've never called it just 'racism'. Maybe it's because I'm not from the US, idk. Now that I have considered that definition, and seen that the dictionaries don't hold up one of the definitions over the other (I wish they did for clarity's sake but they don't), I'll keep it in mind in the future. Also, logically and linguistically speaking, imo you guys should consider the other definition too.

    Really, the dictionary (the language actually) just needs to be improved. Given the racial neutrality of the word 'race' and the normal usage of ism, word-wise, it's clear what racism should mean. Popular-usage-wise though I guess it should be branched out into two different words which mean the two main popular usages. Sorry, I'm a computer programmer lol.

  23. #21
    الذهاب المغيرين brad little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    11,237
    Blog Entries
    22


    it's best to stop going by the dictionary definition of "racism" and put it into real world context. because when you do, it becomes apparent there really isn't racism against white people.

    when I say "get all the breaks" i mean a white person is usually more trusted than any person of color. if a woman gets her purse stolen who's the more likely person to be accused of it, a white person(whether or not they are poor or not makes no difference), or a person of color? when you hear of a 7/11 getting robbed on the news which group of people does your mind immediately jump to in regards to the culprit, white people or people of color?

  24. #22
    Junior Camper SuitOfDrugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    186
    Blog Entries
    11


    Quote Originally Posted by super nintendo chalmers View Post
    when I say "get all the breaks" i mean a white person is usually more trusted than any person of color. if a woman gets her purse stolen who's the more likely person to be accused of it, a white person(whether or not they are poor or not makes no difference), or a person of color? when you hear of a 7/11 getting robbed on the news which group of people does your mind immediately jump to in regards to the culprit, white people or people of color?
    I think that some ivy league rich white guy is getting more advantage from being white than some super poor white guy who lives in a trailer park though, especially if his family's wealth comes from ancestors who got rich off the backs of slaves. And if a woman's purse gets stolen and there's a poor white guy in a hoody vs a rich black businessman in a suit, it's the white guy who is going to get accused (in most places in the western world). I have been agreeing with you that poor people still have white privilege, I'm just saying I think rich white people have even more.

    Quote Originally Posted by super nintendo chalmers View Post
    it's best to stop going by the dictionary definition of "racism" and put it into real world context. because when you do, it becomes apparent there really isn't racism against white people.
    I guess I know what you are trying to say, but, the way you wrote it is kind of a weird illogical statement that folds in on itself. Since there are two different definitions of racism that we've mainly been talking about (basically 'institutionalized/systematic racism' vs 'racial prejudice'), you need to specify which one you are talking about. There isn't the real world one and the dictionary one. They are both in the real world and both in the dictionary.

    You mean systematic racism, so yeah, of course under that definition there is virtually none against white people. I would never argue with that and I never have, people just thought I was because I was using a different definition than they were and I didn't know they were and they didn't know I was.

    Irritatingly, both definitions are valid, so that means each of us get to write things that come off as offensive to the other without meaning it. Thanks English. That means, as far as I'm concerned, the word racism is currently broken, and maybe from now on if people say it I should ask them to clarify if they mean systematic racism or racial prejudice, and only use those terms instead of racism so people know what I mean...

  25. #23


    Or white people stop calling it racism when they get called a cracker, told they can't cook or told they look like a jar of mayonnaise. maybe once in a while when they're told their opinion doesn't matter on issues they don't understand (like racism!) they should not act like that's opression.

  26. #24
    Funky, Chic, and Smooth Nitsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    3,805


    As a linguist, I'm just going to have to step in and say that the function of a dictionary is not to impose a "correct" definition on people, but to record the definition of a word--definitions being created by how words are used. Since the word "racism" is used to mean "racial prejudice", it does mean that. It also means systematic racial prejudice/discrimination. The problem of course is that there is no telling what definition is meant initially by people using the word. So yes, "racial prejudice" can exist against any race and can be perpetrated by anyone. "Systematic racism" is a different issue altogether.

    However, I do sometimes wonder if people who say things like "black people can't be racist" are saying that because they're touting the "systematic" definition of racism or because they're trying to excuse some kind of prejudicial/offensive statement made by a black person. But that's a case by case issue.
    "Your tears say more than real evidence ever could."




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •