WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Oh grey, you've just cemented my love for you, you devious devil.
I honestly don't understand all the anger coming your way, unless a usually intelligent bunch of people have suddenly lost the (most important ability) to be able to laugh at themselves.
I hope not.
The fedora and Zimmerman joke were icing on cake, yet I can't help feeling you might have offended some redditors with this somehow.
Luv u guiz <3
I honestly don't understand all the anger coming your way, unless a usually intelligent bunch of people have suddenly lost the (most important ability) to be able to laugh at themselves.
I hope not.
The fedora and Zimmerman joke were icing on cake, yet I can't help feeling you might have offended some redditors with this somehow.
Luv u guiz <3
I know. I was continuing to respond as if we were the two people talking about having whatever character be black.JimB said:
Checking your privilege is a good idea, in that everyone suffers from perspective limitations. Remembering that and not dismissing something your disagree with, especially when its uncomfortable or challenging to your or your identity. That someone's personal experiences can contradict your own and be just as valid or moreso.
SAYING "check your privilege" in your discussion is a foul way not to induce this self- reflection but try to claim ownership of discussion by way of claiming anything anyone says disagreeing with you is wrong, does not enable or open discussion but closes it and predicates on an assumption, however well recognized in general, and applying it in the specific in a way that is blanket prejudgement. It does the opposite of what you want it to and comes off as selfish and vain. (Scottsboro anyone)
If you see to dismiss who you say that to and feel superior, fine. If you claim to be furthering social justice and or some cause by discussion. Not so much. The exception is a mod and that's something else because this is open private forum with requests to not violate the peace as defined by our host and the mod enforces that authority.
I get the same way with the word sexist. That's not mere word. That's modern moral CONDEMNATION! Understandably people will object to it, and moreover disdain those who claim absolute authority of its use and exclusive of you by means of some "not fit to make reasoned judgements" Men don't like it more than women do (attributing ANY outcry to hormones or their gender or comparison to your ex)
SAYING "check your privilege" in your discussion is a foul way not to induce this self- reflection but try to claim ownership of discussion by way of claiming anything anyone says disagreeing with you is wrong, does not enable or open discussion but closes it and predicates on an assumption, however well recognized in general, and applying it in the specific in a way that is blanket prejudgement. It does the opposite of what you want it to and comes off as selfish and vain. (Scottsboro anyone)
If you see to dismiss who you say that to and feel superior, fine. If you claim to be furthering social justice and or some cause by discussion. Not so much. The exception is a mod and that's something else because this is open private forum with requests to not violate the peace as defined by our host and the mod enforces that authority.
I get the same way with the word sexist. That's not mere word. That's modern moral CONDEMNATION! Understandably people will object to it, and moreover disdain those who claim absolute authority of its use and exclusive of you by means of some "not fit to make reasoned judgements" Men don't like it more than women do (attributing ANY outcry to hormones or their gender or comparison to your ex)
As an add on to my previous post, I would like to address the argument that some people believe that this attempt at racial humor is somehow ironic rather than hateful and that the fact that people are commenting negatively towards it proves some truth to it. I will be the first to admit that I actually enjoy a lot of racial humor. I'm a fan of Dave Chapelle and find his use of race and humor really well done and funny. Most racial stereotypes used for humor tend to be focused on a perception of some shortcoming that can easily be disproved on an individual basis when challenged, or based on some superficial quirk or are so overblown so as to be not taken seriously.
In this case however the very act of trying to disprove it is alleged to reinforce the notion, while saying nothing does nothing to challenge it. The charge seems to be that we lack introspection and empathy. Compared to a belief that we are bad drivers(Asian), That we like fried chicken(Black), That we are stingy with money(Jewish), That we are all illegal border jumpers(Hispanic), That we are sexually mercenary(Women). I would rather have all of those stereotypes applied to me than to be told that I'm defined by a sense of hatred/contempt vs. everyone else. It's just a transparent attempt to point out that white=evil. Of course people are going to attempt to defend themselves from that.
In this case however the very act of trying to disprove it is alleged to reinforce the notion, while saying nothing does nothing to challenge it. The charge seems to be that we lack introspection and empathy. Compared to a belief that we are bad drivers(Asian), That we like fried chicken(Black), That we are stingy with money(Jewish), That we are all illegal border jumpers(Hispanic), That we are sexually mercenary(Women). I would rather have all of those stereotypes applied to me than to be told that I'm defined by a sense of hatred/contempt vs. everyone else. It's just a transparent attempt to point out that white=evil. Of course people are going to attempt to defend themselves from that.
Which to a large extent I agree with, hence I didn't see the need to include it in my post. What I did object to was the first paragraph (and the last, but that's just me).RoonMian said:
-the guy who came up with the whole "stand your ground"-law idea
This would have to extend so far back in time you probably wouldn't be able to blame the ashes of the person who dreamt it up.
-the guy who came up with the idea of neighborhood watches and taking the monopoly on violence away from the police
Sometimes, you just can't rely on the police to respond to your troubles or if they do, to do it fast enough. That is why neighborhood watches exist. Similarly, you have people organising groups to help border patrol because sometimes they just can't control a large enough area.
The monopoly of violence was taken away from the police back when the first 10 amendments were added e.g. pretty much when the US was established.
-general gun culture
I could see this being blamed for Zimmerman having a gun but for Martin to assault someone.
But anyway, if I'm still missing something, please point it out to me, I'm genuinely scratching my head.
Beautifully put.Darmani said:
Made all the funnier by how the same people who harp it claim that deconstructing their arguments is akin to "shouting them down", or "trying to silence" them. The hypocrisy is so thick you could use it to hammer nails.
Off-point: It's scummy to accuse people of "screaming" or "shouting" over the internet. The composure of the person you're dealing with is actually a mystery to you, it's dishonest as fuck to claim that they're "screaming". I don't like to tell people what to do, but... Stop that!! It's utter shite that's obviously designed to paint yourself in the best possible light whilst painting who you're talking to in the worst possible light. It's like when people make analogies using the Nazis when it makes absolutely zero sense to. They've made a terrible analogy, but they've also put the other poster and Naziism under the same spotlight... Which was the aim, if we're being honest. More dishonest bullshit.
You think it's about making sense? It's not. It's about politics and self-loving. The kind of sweet sweet self-loving that can only be achieved by feeling like you're better than everyone else. There's no pornography in your logic, Shadrach... Does it even arouse yourself?Schadrach said:
I see a lot of people saying that the comic is fine, that it isn't against white people, just against white people who have a specific set of actions or beliefs. And I agree, this is the intent of the comic. And yet I can't help thinking that a similar comic mocking feminists who think all males are rapists would be quickly dismissed as a straw-man and the creator accused of being anti-equality.
I imagine a comic that had a minority dressed up in stereotypical clothing and saying really ignorant things would be called offensive. This comic is fine because it obviously only applies to people who do the specific things mentioned, but a comic like the one I describe would be considered racist because, people would say, it stereotypes all members of that race.
A comic about a bunch of ignorant white nerds is okay, because using stereotypes and caricatures is fine. It only mocks the specific white people it applies to.
A comic about a bunch of ignorant minority gangbangers is not okay, because using stereotypes and caricatures is wrong. It mocks the whole race by pretending that the whole race is made up of negative stereotypes.
So, why does this dissonance exist? Well, some may argue that there is no historical context of racism for the former and that means it's fair game. I would contest that notion on the grounds that historical context, however important, does not give carte blanche to act unjustly towards people now, regardless of their race. We should not allow historical context to justify an act that would otherwise be vilified, or else we'll be in danger of repeating the same mistakes that led to that historical context in the first place.
Another argument one may make is that white people, today, do not suffer significant racism, and thus the former comic is fine. But, since minorities do suffer significant racism, then the latter is not okay. Again, I see an issue with this logic. Whether using stereotypes and racial caricatures is okay or not is a question that needs answered for everyone, not justified in one hand and vilified in another; not set up as a way to create double standards based on race.
I took a few days to think about the comic, as I didn't want to have a knee-jerk reaction. In the end, I think it is fine, even if I didn't really find it all that amusing. I happen to be a white nerd who likes hats, including fedoras, and is rather fond of MLP:FiM because it is a very well constructed show, so the comic seems to suggest at first that if you like those things you are also an ignorant jackass. I got over myself though and just accepted that some people who like the things I like are also jackasses. My concern is that we would be very quick to damn and demonize any other use of this sort of stereotyping, which seems to me to be a rather racist/sexist act in and of itself.
As for the Zimmerman reference though, I find it to be in extraordinarily bad taste as it really does go too far by suggesting that if you hold an ignorant opinion about the issues mentioned, you also believe that murdering someone with a different viewpoint is also okay. Additionally, regardless of whether you think Zimmerman was justified or not, he didn't shoot Martin just because he had an opinion about an issue. This whole reference is just awful and is on par with Fox News level of commentary.
I imagine a comic that had a minority dressed up in stereotypical clothing and saying really ignorant things would be called offensive. This comic is fine because it obviously only applies to people who do the specific things mentioned, but a comic like the one I describe would be considered racist because, people would say, it stereotypes all members of that race.
A comic about a bunch of ignorant white nerds is okay, because using stereotypes and caricatures is fine. It only mocks the specific white people it applies to.
A comic about a bunch of ignorant minority gangbangers is not okay, because using stereotypes and caricatures is wrong. It mocks the whole race by pretending that the whole race is made up of negative stereotypes.
So, why does this dissonance exist? Well, some may argue that there is no historical context of racism for the former and that means it's fair game. I would contest that notion on the grounds that historical context, however important, does not give carte blanche to act unjustly towards people now, regardless of their race. We should not allow historical context to justify an act that would otherwise be vilified, or else we'll be in danger of repeating the same mistakes that led to that historical context in the first place.
Another argument one may make is that white people, today, do not suffer significant racism, and thus the former comic is fine. But, since minorities do suffer significant racism, then the latter is not okay. Again, I see an issue with this logic. Whether using stereotypes and racial caricatures is okay or not is a question that needs answered for everyone, not justified in one hand and vilified in another; not set up as a way to create double standards based on race.
I took a few days to think about the comic, as I didn't want to have a knee-jerk reaction. In the end, I think it is fine, even if I didn't really find it all that amusing. I happen to be a white nerd who likes hats, including fedoras, and is rather fond of MLP:FiM because it is a very well constructed show, so the comic seems to suggest at first that if you like those things you are also an ignorant jackass. I got over myself though and just accepted that some people who like the things I like are also jackasses. My concern is that we would be very quick to damn and demonize any other use of this sort of stereotyping, which seems to me to be a rather racist/sexist act in and of itself.
As for the Zimmerman reference though, I find it to be in extraordinarily bad taste as it really does go too far by suggesting that if you hold an ignorant opinion about the issues mentioned, you also believe that murdering someone with a different viewpoint is also okay. Additionally, regardless of whether you think Zimmerman was justified or not, he didn't shoot Martin just because he had an opinion about an issue. This whole reference is just awful and is on par with Fox News level of commentary.
That was not meant literally, the same as with the next guy I mention. Which I thought would be obvious, sorry for being unclear there.furai47 said:
The police having the monopoly on violence is a big marker for every western country with rule of law and that we call "civilised" except for the USA. Not trusting the police with that is in my opinion a huge societal problem in your country that reflects in gun culture, in crime, in the xenophobia of self-organised border patrols and so many other issues the USA have in my opinion. When someone doesn't trust the police with the monopoly on violence and takes it in his own hands, which you described as being one of the establishing factors of the USA, he doesn't trust a person /just as himself/ who gets (ideally) trained and prepared for that and instead arms himself. This kind of cognitive dissonance is pretty much unique to the USA and leaves pretty much the entire world baffled.
That is what I wanted to express with my first post, blaming those two "guys" and the culture which are actually three sides of the same completely interwoven clusterfuck. I don't know how to solve those problems that's just how I see them.
As I speculated in my first post I think Martin assaulted Zimmerman because he felt threatened by him, being followed around his own neighborhood, at least that is what I heard from the case. That is one of the oldest things in the world. Besides, by attacking Zimmerman who followed him around Martin too stood his ground, just that he didn't have a gun. I'm sure Martin had a cellphone too but he didn't trust the police enough to check out that guy following him around either and assaulted him himself.
People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable. There are a bunch of different stereotypes at work here, some dealing with race and some with sex, but the idea that a white person will murder a minority with the slightest provocation rather is a white stereotype, and a vicious one at that.Dijkstra said:
Again, someone doesn't understand the case and also doesn't understand the law, despite the fact that both were explained only a few posts ago.RoonMian said:
Stand your ground doesn't allow you to attack people who are near you and doing nothing wrong. The law is there so that victims of violent crime can defend themselves without the need to first determine whether they can escape the situation or not. It also has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case because Zimmerman was being beaten into concrete with someone sitting on top of him, which rather hinders your ability to get up and run away.
And once again, Zimmerman did not follow Martin to a confrontation. Zimmerman lost Martin for 4 whole minutes while Martin was within 100 yards of his home. Instead Martin double backed and attacked Zimmerman at the T intersection near his truck.
And for the other people suggesting he was an innocent little boy, he simply wasn't...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls
I can understand your frustration with people not trusting the police to take care of things, but consider this:RoonMian said:
You decide to break into someone's home. You smash the door in, kill the person in the house then pick up the phone and call 911. If you're in any moderately large city in the US you can then turn on the TV, watch it for about 10 minutes and then casually walk out of the house. When you've done all that, the first police cruiser _might_ just show up and when they do they won't immediately run into the house to help the person you've killed; they don't know what's inside so they'll wait for backup. Only then will they enter the house and find the body.
This is pretty much what you can expect. You will get instances where there's a police cruiser nearby and they can respond quicker, but generally this is what you're looking at. THIS is why neighborhood watch exist in some communities.
The unofficial border patrol aren't angry Texans with shotguns. They're people who once every few days or weeks go out on the lookout for people illegally crossing the border and then relay this information to the official border patrol (in some cases the two have direct communications channels). Think official border patrol without the authority to detain people.
What I meant with the monopoly of violence thing is that while US citizens have surrendered a set of rights and given the police authority to do their thing to keep society running, they haven't done so fully. They've allowed the government and it's proxies to exercise their power over the general populace as to provide a stable country; in return, the government has given the citizens the right (or rather, the citizens have kept their right) to step up when the government goes out of line. This is a large part of what the 2nd amendment protects.
The entire US government is built on a system of checks and balances. It's a different system than what we're used to almost everywhere else.
I wrote "we're used to everywhere else" because I don't live in the US.
The problem with Martin and Stand your ground (same goes for Castle doctrine) is that he wasn't a victim of a crime/there was no crime being committed against him at the time he decided on the assault. In fact, the only illegal action in that scenario was Martin's which automatically strips you of SYG/castle doctrine/self defense/whatever.RoonMian said:
Again, imagine Zimmerman threw the first punch/assaulted Martin. If the entire thing after that happened exactly as it did in February, Zimmerman could not invoke SYG nor self defense because in that moment he threw the punch, he surrendered that option. By law, he would be guilty of assault and probably even 1st degree murder (though more likely manslaughter), convicted and put in jail.
I found the comic to be pretty funny, even the Zimmerman bit but that was more of a morbid groan kinda funny, not like the rest of the comic. The Zimmerman bit just didn't seem to fit the context of the rest of the comic. It was probably added to generate controversy...seems to be the norm for some of the escapist featured content creators.
Anyway, I'm male, I'm white, I'm strait and ill never feel a shred of guilt for it.
Anyway, I'm male, I'm white, I'm strait and ill never feel a shred of guilt for it.
That would be both comics and both of you, because neither one of you seem to be getting the context behind the first comic.JimB said:
Only if its dynamic. If race is static then it has no bearing on the situation, but if race is dynamic - that is, if race must change - then it does matter.JimB said:
In fact it is specifically the change that matters, not the starting or finishing states, as the change itself drives the need for additional work but the endpoint provides no more or less value than the starting point.
Wow. That was actually hilarious. Loved the little touches, the pony, the mirin', the fedora. 36 pages of comments so far but damn, that was funny. Excellent stuff.
That gif also made me lol hard. Thanks for that.
Teoes said:
That gif also made me lol hard. Thanks for that.