Modern Racism
Quote: weaselmanBut when it is all blacks shopping at Old Navy or eating at Dominoes, that is exactly because someone up there in the ad agency thought "I gotta film some minorities or I'll get in trouble", or "I gotta film some minorities because I am such a liberal, open minded person", or something else like this. They did it purposefully, choosing actors of a particular race because of their race. And that is racism.
How do you know that they didn't hire actors on the basis of ability, but then had to, or logically needed to switch them up? In rehearsal, the guy reading the least lines turns out to have a better delivery. The uniforms (for like the Dominoes commercial) might have restricted which actors could play the kitchen roles. Maybe it turned out someone was too tall or short for the drive-up.
So, in the end result (which looks biased to you) the actual process was completely fair.
Anyway, i'd still argue it's the overall depiction in the long run (as a phrase popular here), not 1 or 2 commercials reflects whether a company is racially biased. At least, if it's not something extremely blatant. such as per like Don Imus, "Hey you nappy hoes want some pizza?"
On the topic of 'hate' found in titles, I personally can't care anymore. I don't have the ability. As the fable goes, you can't please everyone all the time, and I'm tired of trying. 'African American' is ridiculous. Must we do a geneological records check anytime we refer to one another, for fear of offense? Martin Luther King Jr is American. Bob Marley is Jamaican. Wyclef Jean is Haitian. None of them 'African American', all of them black. Dave Matthews of Dave Matthews Band is African American, and he's white. Just call em like you see em. Simple. If such broad and general terms offend you, it's my opinion that you need to do some soul searching and find out what you're really angry about. Personally, when refering to friends and/or family I had or have, I've never once been corrected on the use of 'black'. When being p.c. I have, however, been advised that 'I aint never even BEEN to Africa'. I don't get pissed or correct people when I'm refered to as 'white', even though I'm only half teutonic. Splitting hairs is just so tiresome and pointless. If I can handle being given an incorrect chromatic designation, you can handle being called an appropriate one. If not, sorry 'bout your hate.
As an aside, I think anyone offended by the commercial in question should just be thankful they're still being represented. I've only seen my kind in reruns of 70's commercials, crying on the side of the road 'cause someone littered. And that actor was Italian!!
Quote: rxwineHow do you know that they didn't hire actors on the basis of ability, but then had to, or logically needed to switch them up? In rehearsal, the guy reading the least lines turns out to have a better delivery. The uniforms (for like the Dominoes commercial) might have restricted which actors could play the kitchen roles. Maybe it turned out someone was too tall or short for the drive-up.
So, in the end result (which looks biased to you) the actual process was completely fair.
Entirely possible, of course. Just doesn't seem likely to me.
Quote:Anyway, i'd still argue it's the overall depiction in the long run (as a phrase popular here), not 1 or 2 commercials reflects whether a company is racially biased.
I don't think Dominoes is racially biased. It's the ad agency/creative team that, probably is. And even them, I don't think are really racially biased as in "all Whiteys should go to Europe", I think they are just taking political correctness to the limits where sanity and reason cease to exist.
Quote: weaselmanThey did it purposefully, choosing actors of a particular race because of their race. And that is racism.
Thank god, somebody who 'gets it'. Positioning people in a commercial because of race, is racism, pure and simple. Non racism would be auditioning people and picking the actors you want based on their talent and age demographics for what you want, and race wouldn't come into it at all. This never ever EVER happens, just thinking about it happening makes me laugh.
Quote: EvenBobThank god, somebody who 'gets it'. Positioning people in a commercial because of race, is racism, pure and simple. Non racism would be auditioning people and picking the actors you want based on their talent and age demographics for what you want, and race wouldn't come into it at all. This never ever EVER happens, just thinking about it happening makes me laugh.
Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Racism a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
I mean a commercial is not meant to be a work of art. It has a target demographic and is meant to evoke desire for a product. Of course the producers can't be color blind.
Quote: pacomartin
I mean a commercial is not meant to be a work of art. It has a target demographic and is meant to evoke desire for a product. Of course the producers can't be color blind.
If by "color blind" you mean "not racist", I beg to differ. Why can't they be color blind? Why shouldn't they? Surely there are SOME people that are not racist.
Quote: pacomartinRacism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Racism a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
It's worth repeating. Very well put.
Now my question: are you more likely to be interested in a product if the comercial contains people of your race or ethnicity?
To me it doesn't really matter. What is said about the product matters more. Not that I get my information solely form comercials, but interest in a product sometimes begins there.
Quote: EvenBobThank god, somebody who 'gets it'. Positioning people in a commercial because of race, is racism, pure and simple. Non racism would be auditioning people and picking the actors you want based on their talent and age demographics for what you want, and race wouldn't come into it at all. This never ever EVER happens, just thinking about it happening makes me laugh.
How is that you feel positioning people in a commercial because of race is racism, but you feel it's okay to pick actors based on their age demographics for what you want?
What is the difference between demographic targeting based on race vs. age such that only the latter is acceptable to you?
Quote: MathExtremistHow is that you feel positioning people in a commercial because of race is racism, but you feel it's okay to pick actors based on their age demographics for what you want?
What is the difference between demographic targeting based on race vs. age such that only the latter is acceptable to you?
The difference is that it does not depend on race :) That would be agism, I guess, different topic :)
Seriously though, I think, it's not targeting the demographics by race, that is unacceptable so much as it is the double standard. If somebody wanted to shoot a commercial "targeting" specifically white demographics, that would be considered racist, and unacceptable.
And besides, do you seriously believe that Dominoes only wants minorities to buy their pizza? Why in the world would they want to target that demographics?
I also wanted to say, that if the ad really seemed to be targeting demographics by race (which would be illegal), I guess, it would be fine with me ... I even started typing an example describing such a hypothetical ad, but everything I could think of, sounded so terribly racist to me, that I decided to just drop it.
Quote: weaselmanIf a commercial has all white people in it, it is really unlikely (I think) because the producers actively did not want to film blacks. More probably, it is because there were more white actors immediately available to them, or, perhaps, because they just picked some actors they worked with before, or some other innocent reason like that. It is not because they were thinking about race, but exactly the opposite - because they were not.
I came back to this, because I actually think it's probably wrong. If there are companies targeting minorities, they're also likely targeting WASPs, or mostly white truck owners in rural locations (Big Ford Truck), etc., So, yes, putting all white cowboy types in a commericial is also intentional, not innocent.
However, because we have incomplete information, innocent until proven otherwise in any particular case.
BTW, where are the multiple (hundreds of) lawsuits for all this racism? These companies have money to take.
In this specific case, hiring white sometimes, black, asian, etc., But always hiring another race eventually.
By law, maybe it is. But seems a pretty weak case (to me anyway of bias that punishes people over for any one race)
Quote: pacomartinRacism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Racism a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
I mean a commercial is not meant to be a work of art. It has a target demographic and is meant to evoke desire for a product. Of course the producers can't be color blind.
I think that these are pretty good definitions, but apparently, racism doesn't have much to do with race any more, but with power. You know, one of those "global warming doesn't mean warming" things.
Why don't we just call it powerism, then?
Does that make us powerists? I'm no powerist! I don't assign predispositions on powerful people or unpowerful people!
Quote: rxwineI came back to this, because I actually think it's probably wrong. If there are companies targeting minorities, they're also likely targeting WASPs,
Oh, but, like I said earlier, I don't think they are targeting minorities. If they were, I'd be fine with it. An ad for ... I dunno ... a face veil, featuring an arab woman, or, perhaps, a full table of Asian people playing Pai Gow or Baccarat, would not make me wonder why they did it. But Dominoes targeting minorities? I don't think so. Is it because white people don't like pizza, or are they all just too busy working in the kitchen?
Quote:However, because we have incomplete information, innocent until proven otherwise in any particular case.
Well, this is not a criminal case.
Quote:BTW, where are the multiple (hundreds of) lawsuits for all this racism? These companies have money to take.
Good luck finding a lawyer willing to defend a case of racism against white people. Some lawyers are pretty crazy, but even they are usually not suicidal. Either way, a lawsuit like that would never succeed, because Whites are not a protected group under the law, so it is not illegal to discriminate against them.
Quote: weaselmanGood luck finding a lawyer willing to defend a case of racism against white people. Some lawyers are pretty crazy, but even they are usually not suicidal. Either way, a lawsuit like that would never succeed, because Whites are not a protected group under the law, so it is not illegal to discriminate against them.
I'm cynical. But not actually cynical enough to believe I couldn't win a discrimination case IF I had sufficient evidence. (assuming there wasn't some technical screw up along the way.)
It can be difficult to prove why someone was hired or fired though. Just not getting hired, or fired - you already stand accused of being disgruntled.
Quote: rxwineI'm cynical. But not actually cynical enough to believe I couldn't win a discrimination case IF I had sufficient evidence. (assuming there wasn't some technical screw up along the way.)
Whites not being a protected group is "a technical screw". "Jury of your peers", selected from the same PC crowd who came up with the idea of the "Dominoes for minorities" commercial is not so technical, but quite a screw.
If you really, seriously don't think it is absolutely hopeless, try looking up a precedent. See how many white discrimination cases have ever been won.
Or try reading this. It is not about civil action, but interesting nevertheless, and gives you some idea about the level of protection you can expect from the government as a member of white race.
Quote:It can be difficult to prove why someone was hired or fired though.
Of course. But try firing a black guy without really-really well document cause, and you will see who will have to prove, and who will just need to sit there and listen.
Not true! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, color, religion or national origin. This covers you whether you are white OR black.Quote: weaselmanGood luck finding a lawyer willing to defend a case of racism against white people. Some lawyers are pretty crazy, but even they are usually not suicidal. Either way, a lawsuit like that would never succeed, because Whites are not a protected group under the law, so it is not illegal to discriminate against them.
So white, male, protestants are a protected class just the same as everybody else. You can't discriminate against them the same way you can't discriminate against Blacks, Hindus, or Laotian-Americans.
Quote: teddysNot true! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, color, religion or national origin. This covers you whether you are white OR black.
So white, male, protestants are a protected class just the same as everybody else. You can't discriminate against them the same way you can't discriminate against Blacks, Hindus, or Laotian-Americans.
The Bakke decision was quite some time ago, and it validated the right to sue against what was then called "reverse discrimination" but should, of course, simply be called "racial discrimination".
A few years after that decision, I took the federal civil service exam and scored in the 99th percentile. I was never offered a job. I found out later that at that time, being black automatically added 20% to your score. I couldn't sue the federal government for discrimination (a private citizen can't sue the government). What I should have done is go retake the test, but check the "African-American" box this time. No one can deny me the right to be black if I want to be!
Quote: mkl654321A few years after that decision, I took the federal civil service exam and scored in the 99th percentile. I was never offered a job. I found out later that at that time, being black automatically added 20% to your score. I couldn't sue the federal government for discrimination (a private citizen can't sue the government). What I should have done is go retake the test, but check the "African-American" box this time. No one can deny me the right to be black if I want to be!
As the aggrieved class, based on the last couple hundred years of how we've looked out for various aggrieved classes, what would be justice?
aggrieved class I define as = anyone who can truthfully state: I did nothing to deserve this (ill treatment, discrimination, whatever)
I say, justice is, you're lucky if we ignore you for your entire lifetime. Because when we don't you'll be lucky if you get any job at all. And if you do, it will be the worst of the jobs. After a lifetime of this, when you die, maybe, just maybe if your descendents make enough noise we'll give them partial compensation: barren land (for a casino maybe) or affirmative action. They should take advantage of this while they can, because it won't likely last for ever.
Bakke is still good law, but has been modified and pretty much supplanted by the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, Gratz and Grutter. There, the Court said that race may be used "as a factor" is considering admissions decisions, but they could not give a "plus mark" in a hard rubric for being a minority race.Quote: mkl654321The Bakke decision was quite some time ago, and it validated the right to sue against what was then called "reverse discrimination" but should, of course, simply be called "racial discrimination".
A few years after that decision, I took the federal civil service exam and scored in the 99th percentile. I was never offered a job. I found out later that at that time, being black automatically added 20% to your score. I couldn't sue the federal government for discrimination (a private citizen can't sue the government). What I should have done is go retake the test, but check the "African-American" box this time. No one can deny me the right to be black if I want to be!
What the government did in your case was illegal, at least under today's law. You can sue the federal government and related entities for discrimination -- they are not immune from that. Too bad the statute of limitations has run.
Quote: teddysNot true! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, color, religion or national origin. This covers you whether you are white OR black.
Yeah, it does. Just like the Second Amendment tells that I can own a gun, or like "Flora v. United States" say that Federal Tax is voluntary.
The devil is in the details, as usual. In this case, it is the legal definition of discrimination, the court must use when deciding your case. Unless you can find and show them a precedent decided earlier, where a white person was discriminated against in court's opinion, they will just tell you that it is impossible to discriminate against a majority. What is Affirmative Action, if not discrimination in it's classic form - two different standards for people from different races? On the face of it, it clearly contradicts the CRA as you quote it ... but try mentioning it to any judge, a lawyer or s student of law, and you are going to get a long lecture on what is really meant by "discrimination".
Affirmative action is discrimination, which is why the Supreme Court said it is subject to the strictest scrutiny, and will only be allowed in limited circumstances where the State demonstrates a compelling interest in a diverse workforce/student body and achieves that using the least restrictive means available. Some states have made it illegal.Quote: weaselmanYeah, it does. Just like the Second Amendment tells that I can own a gun, or like "Flora v. United States" say that Federal Tax is voluntary.
The devil is in the details, as usual. In this case, it is the legal definition of discrimination, the court must use when deciding your case. Unless you can find and show them a precedent decided earlier, where a white person was discriminated against in court's opinion, they will just tell you that it is impossible to discriminate against a majority. What is Affirmative Action, if not discrimination in it's classic form - two different standards for people from different races? On the face of it, it clearly contradicts the CRA as you quote it ... but try mentioning it to any judge, a lawyer or s student of law, and you are going to get a long lecture on what is really meant by "discrimination".
There are a bunch of cases where white people have won discrimination suits: The Bakke and Gratz case mentioned above, and just last year, the Ricci v. DiStefano case, where white (and Hispanic) firefighters won a suit because the test they took for promotion may have been biased because African-Americans didn't score well enough on it, and therefore nobody was promoted.
Quote: teddysAffirmative action is discrimination, which is why the Supreme Court said it is subject to the strictest scrutiny,
"Strictes scrutiny"? Didn't you just say that discrimination was illegal? This is the point - it is not. It may be subject to scrutiny, but no court will say it's illegal as long as it is not against a minority class.
Quote:
There are a bunch of cases where white people have won discrimination suits: The Bakke and Gratz case mentioned above, and just last year, the Ricci v. DiStefano case, where white (and Hispanic) firefighters won a suit because the test they took for promotion may have been biased because African-Americans didn't score well enough on it, and therefore nobody was promoted.
I could pick on a few points about these two (Both were split decisions,tBakke has been flipped several times since, and even originally wasn't strictly a "win", because they did not order Bakke's admission, and still stated that race could be a factor in admission decisions, the other one was, perhaps, more clear cut, but one of the claimants was disabled, and the other was Hispanic, and it also has been lost four times before it reached the SJC, and one of the judges that heard it was Sotomayor, so, if the SJC heard it now, the ruling would be different), but can't we instead just agree, that it is rather an exception than a rule? Just like hitting 500 reds in a row, it is possible in theory to win a "reverse discrimination" case, but what is the likely outcome?
If I am denied a job because I am not a minority, I might sue and win, especially, if I am not alone, but a part of a large group, also including some Hispanics :), but it's a lot more likely that I'll lose, and it'll all be just a huge waste of money and time for me.
But if you wanted to sue Dominoes for the discrimination in their ad, that's a whole different story. You'd be simply laughed out of court with such a case, because you don't have any standing in it to begin with. You'd first have to find some Human Rights organization, that would take on a campaign to convince the Federal Government to bring the action. And what organization would that be? KKK? And what do you think are the chances that a District Attorney would ever consider filing such a suit on your behalf?
Quote: MathExtremistbut you feel it's okay to pick actors based on their age demographics for what you want?
If I'm selling anti wrinkle creme, why would I want teenagers in the commercial.
Quote: rxwineAs the aggrieved class, based on the last couple hundred years of how we've looked out for various aggrieved classes, what would be justice?
A racially blind application process. Hire applicants based on merit, not on the results of a sham "test" where the question, "are you a formerly oppressed ethnic minority" counts for twenty times as much as any other question.
Quote: weaselmanYeah, it does. Just like the Second Amendment tells that I can own a gun,
Careful. A heated and protracted discussion on another thread showed that the majority of forum members misread the Second Amendment to mean exactly that.
Quote: mkl654321Careful. A heated and protracted discussion on another thread showed that the majority of forum members misread the Second Amendment to mean exactly that.
Misread? I don't think so.
Quote: mkl654321Careful. A heated and protracted discussion on another thread showed that the majority of forum members misread the Second Amendment to mean exactly that.
I know, and not just forum members. There are a lot of people, who think that, and that was my whole point.
Just like with the CRA prohibiting "discrimination", it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think when it comes to legal or constitutional issues, all that matters is how the courts interpret it. If they say you can own the gun, you can, if they say you can be discriminated against, you can, and that's really the end of the road.
Quote: mkl654321Careful. A heated and protracted discussion on another thread showed that the majority of forum members misread the Second Amendment to mean exactly that.
Yeah .. we went over how your interpretation of the second amendment is inconsistent in the extreme, and how, if applied to other section of the same document, could be interpreted to mean that The People shouldn't have the right to vote for their representatives.
Your interpretation is pretty much a fantasy concocted to align with your political view. Having the particular political view is fine, but Olga Korbut-ing the Constitution to make it "agree" with you is silly and doesn't fool anyone.
Like I said earlier, the Constitution is changeable. If you want it to mean "guns aren't a right," work on getting it to say "guns aren't a right" rather than "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and trying to do the gymnastics to convince us that "not be infringed" really means "shall be infringed."
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerYeah .. we went over how your interpretation of the second amendment is inconsistent in the extreme, and how, if applied to other section of the same document, could be interpreted to mean that The People shouldn't have the right to vote for their representatives.
Your interpretation is pretty much a fantasy concocted to align with your political view. Having the particular political view is fine, but Olga Korbut-ing the Constitution to make it "agree" with you is silly and doesn't fool anyone.
Like I said earlier, the Constitution is changeable. If you want it to mean "guns aren't a right," work on getting it to say "guns aren't a right" rather than "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and trying to do the gymnastics to convince us that "not be infringed" really means "shall be infringed."
My view is based on simple logic, and the English language reading skills I possess (which most of the posters, and you, also possess; you are just choosing not to use them in this instance). You are utterly incorrect when you guess that my views on the subject are either aligned with or derived from my political views. In point of fact, I think that the individual citizen HAS the right to own a gun, flamethrower, nuclear weapon, bottle of anthrax, rocket launcher, etc. What my point all along has been is that the gun lobby is utterly incorrect to interpret the Second Amendment as VALIDATING gun ownership--it does nothing of the kind, as anyone who reads it in its entirely, and for comprehension, should easily see.
And you can call it a "fantasy" of mine that the language of that amendment means exactly what it says, but that doesn't change anything--it still means exactly what it says.
Quote: mkl654321My view is based on simple logic, and the English language reading skills I possess (which most of the posters, and you, also possess; you are just choosing not to use them in this instance).
And you can call it a "fantasy" of mine that the language of that amendment means exactly what it says, but that doesn't change anything--it still means exactly what it says.
Heh ... okay, I'm choosing not to use them when I don't think that "the right shall not be infringed" really means "shall be infringed."
Let me choose not to use them some more ...
MKL is not an asshole.
MKL is not an idiot.
MKL is not a blowhard.
MKL is a good guy that we all want to be around and is not notorious for being suspended and his assholery.
Of course, I mean these in the same sense that "the right shall not be infringed" really means "shall be infringed."
My interpretation of these statements violates no Wizard rules. Any complaints on your part implies that you know you're wrong on the interpretation. Let's hear 'em!
Quote: VinScullyAnd that ball is outta here!
Person A hates Person B because they are black
Person A hates Person B because they are young
To me there is no difference. Person A is making a clear distinction based on 1 fact about the person. The first statement in todays society is magnitudes worse in peoples minds than the second one though. I just think people know something very terrible happened when #1 was a common though. They have no frame of referrence as to what would happen if young people were just shut out of doing things they want to do, it is simple unthinkable, so people just let it pass.
I would be curious to know if people would be up in arms about a local dennys only allowing senior citizens in to eat though.
Quote: soulhunt79Sorry, but a PR person placing people of a specific race is a far cry from lynching and real discimination that happened before the 60s.
So what? Shoplifting is a far cry from murder ... does it make it ok to shoplift then?
Quote:
Person A hates Person B because they are black
Person A hates Person B because they are young
To me there is no difference.
Legally, you are correct - discriminating on the basis of age is also illegal.
But I do think, that the issues are different.
The difference is that in the second case the reason for hate is temporary :)
Everybody was young at some point, and will be old some day, so everyone gets roughly the same treatment on average over the lifetime. And with race it is different, because you are stuck with whatever race you are.
Quote:I would be curious to know if people would be up in arms about a local dennys only allowing senior citizens in to eat though.
There are many places that offer discounts to senior citizens (either on certain days or every day) ... Try that with the race :)
Quote: weaselmanSo what? Shoplifting is a far cry from murder ... does it make it ok to shoplift then?
Sure driving 5mph over the speed limit is just as wrong as careening at high speeds causing accidents.
Really? It's not right, but hardly just as wrong.
If, however, this was simply a show of some sort (which it is not) or if companies did not target demographics (which they do) and these actors were hired on some sort of affirmative action jive, THEN I'd say you may have a point. But the issue was never "why do these minorities have these jobs", it was "why are these miniorities pandering for Domino's?" The answer to that lies with Domino's, and I think you'd find the answer to be the same as it ever was. For the money.
Quote: rxwine
Really? It's not right, but hardly just as wrong.
Of course, choosing actors for a commercial by their race is not "as wrong" as lynching people. Did I miss somebody arguing otherwise? What's your point?
Quote: weaselmanSo what? Shoplifting is a far cry from murder ... does it make it ok to shoplift then?
To me even shoplifting is still a far cry from putting 3 different races on a dominos commercial. Maybe I'm just missing something obvious as to why I or someone else should be offended by this and therefore I question why it would be racism.
Quote: weaselman
Legally, you are correct - discriminating on the basis of age is also illegal.
But I do think, that the issues are different.
The difference is that in the second case the reason for hate is temporary :)
Everybody was young at some point, and will be old some day, so everyone gets roughly the same treatment on average over the lifetime. And with race it is different, because you are stuck with whatever race you are.
When that young person grows up, there will be another young person to take the place for Person A to hate. In my example, the hate is not temporary in either case. They hate black people or they hate young people. The person is hating group and ignoreing the person.
I realize it is viewed differently and honestly I view them differently. This shouldn't be the case though. I don't mind people hating other people, that is their right. I just don't like people hating a person solely because of what general group they belong to.
Quote: weaselmanThere are many places that offer discounts to senior citizens (either on certain days or every day) ... Try that with the race :)
Well this just proves the AARP is the most powerful lobby in the US. :)
Quote: weaselmanOf course, choosing actors for a commercial by their race is not "as wrong" as lynching people. Did I miss somebody arguing otherwise? What's your point?
Well, it starts to become meaningless, when you point out racism to no effect. (like taking a pencil home from work makes everyone a thief)
There's a whole host of laws that languish, as they have become meaningless.
I've yet to figure out the harm and foul in this particular case (and if it is even racism). Not that there couldn't be in some cases.
Quote: rxwineWell, it starts to become meaningless, when you point out racism to no effect. (like taking a pencil home from work makes everyone a thief)
My problem with this is not racism per se so much as the double standard. It would never occur to me to care about "reverse discrimination" so much (if at all) if there was no so much constant crying about the "straight" discrimination.
I feel like some groups of people have to literally walk on eggshells, watching their every word, and every action in order to not God forbid offend somebody and get in trouble, while everybody outside of those groups can just do whatever they please without any consequences whatsoever ... just because somebody lynched somebody else in the past. Lynching was wrong, it was terrible, horrible crime against humanity. But I did not lynch anybody, and you did not either, and I don't see any reason why you or me, or anyone else should feel any guilt or be justified being discriminated against because somebody had committed horrible crimes in the past.
Quote: soulhunt79To me even shoplifting is still a far cry from putting 3 different races on a dominos commercial.
May be, but so what? What does shoplifting have to do with it?
Quote:
Maybe I'm just missing something obvious as to why I or someone else should be offended by this and therefore I question why it would be racism.
Racism is (roughly speaking) judging people's qualities of fitness for something by their race. If that takes place, it's racism, regardless of whether you are offended by it or not.
I for one am not offended by the commercial. I am not even offended by Affirmative Action. I think, if anything, its the minorities who should be offended by that (and I know, that some are).
I am however (somewhat) offended (or, perhaps, a better term would be "upset") by the double standard. Like I just said in the above post, I find it upsetting, that I can't use the "N" word (not that I want to, but that's a different story), but people of other races can call me a "Whitey", or even officially registering brand names that include the offensive, pejorative term used by Latinos to denote white people.
I don't care if they call me that, or whatever they want, but I don't like the fact that they are allowed to, and I am not. Are they better than I am? Smarter? Kinder? Why are they able to use any language they like at their discretion, and I must be watched and policed?
Quote:When that young person grows up, there will be another young person to take the place for Person A to hate. In my example, the hate is not temporary in either case.
The hate against the first person is temporary though. Everybody gets their fair share of hate while they are young, and then it passes when they become older. It's "fair", because it is applied equally to everyone. Doesn't make it right, of course, just different.
Quote: weaselmanMy problem with this is not racism per se so much as the double standard. It would never occur to me to care about "reverse discrimination" so much (if at all) if there was no so much constant crying about the "straight" discrimination.
I feel like some groups of people have to literally walk on eggshells, watching their every word, and every action in order to not God forbid offend somebody and get in trouble, while everybody outside of those groups can just do whatever they please without any consequences whatsoever ... just because somebody lynched somebody else in the past. Lynching was wrong, it was terrible, horrible crime against humanity. But I did not lynch anybody, and you did not either, and I don't see any reason why you or me, or anyone else should feel any guilt or be justified being discriminated against because somebody had committed horrible crimes in the past.
Well, I don't know the reasons for a double standard, and can only guess. First of all humans aren't perfect anyway -- so you have to allow for errors on all sides.
However, when a pendulum has swung one ways for quite awhile, no one expects it to stop dead center. Even when you put your hand to stop it, it will exert force against the hand. For instance, slavery ending didn't end discrimination. Jim Crow laws, for instance. And even when they were gone, you still have people willing to continue on as before.
That may not be the explanation, but that's all I can think of.
Quote: rxwineWell, I don't know the reasons for a double standard, and can only guess. First of all humans aren't perfect anyway -- so you have to allow for errors on all sides.
I am allowing for errors. I am just pointing them out. :)
Quote:That may not be the explanation, but that's all I can think of.
Well, I am well aware of the reasons the current situation is wrong. I just don't think that it makes it any less wrong.
Quote: weaselmanWell, I am well aware of the reasons the current situation is wrong. I just don't think that it makes it any less wrong.
I happened to think of something while I was out and was wondering if there are any Germans who are Germany or lived there most of their life on the board here. Even though the Holocaust is much more recent, I speculate there are non-Jewish Germans born after it who wonder why they have to be so PC when they didn't put anyone in an oven? And it's true, I agree, if freedom of expression (or walking on eggshells) is what they sometimes have to do -- it's not fair to them. But then -- well, what can I say. It probably won't last forever there either.
(if that's the way it is -- I stand to be corrected though)
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerHeh ... okay, I'm choosing not to use them when I don't think that "the right shall not be infringed" really means "shall be infringed."
Let me choose not to use them some more ...
MKL is not an asshole.
MKL is not an idiot.
MKL is not a blowhard.
MKL is a good guy that we all want to be around and is not notorious for being suspended and his assholery.
Of course, I mean these in the same sense that "the right shall not be infringed" really means "shall be infringed."
My interpretation of these statements violates no Wizard rules. Any complaints on your part implies that you know you're wrong on the interpretation. Let's hear 'em!
Pretty pathetic when you have to invent a fake "quote" to pat yourself on the back for being nasty and rude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkxvxV-S4wM&feature=related
Quote: EvenBobAre you saying this isn't racist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkxvxV-S4wM&feature=related
Of course not. It is (was) the use of a celebrity pitchman to promote a product. If that commercial is racist (which it's not), then so is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkFeKhwye8c&NR=1
Presumably you'd disagree. So, in your expert opinion, what demographic representation must a commercial exhibit in order to avoid being "racist" in your view?
Quote: MathExtremistOf course not. It is (was) the use of a celebrity pitchman to promote a product. If that commercial is racist (which it's not), then so is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkFeKhwye8c&NR=1
Presumably you'd disagree. So, in your expert opinion, what demographic representation must a commercial exhibit in order to avoid being "racist" in your view?
Easy. Since blacks make up about 1/8 of the population, you need one black person for every seven white people in your commercial. If there are only four actors, one of them has to be half black. If two people, one of them has to be 1/4 black, etc. If, however, there are only two people and one of them is 100% black, then that's racist because blacks are overrepresented. A commercial with two blacks and six whites would likewise be grossly racist. And any commercial with more black than white people? Horrible. Especially if the white people are cooking and serving the pizza.
I don't know what we would all do without all these new things to get exercised about.
Similarities between elderly Jewish people and young black men.
One of the best written routines about race that I have seen.
father, a Black mother, a talking baby and a
mime. What demographic is State Farm trying to
capture here. Who thinks up this stuff.
