The Gaming Den

Lich-Loved wrote:Just to level-set the facts here:

If you make statements about any race (even white people or Americans) based on stereotypes then you are a bigoted pig. There are plenty enough stupid and ignorant people of any color or nationality that we can go down that road if we want and then we can all fling racial epithets about when referring to anyone that isn't exactly like ourselves. Is it so much to ask to have people here respect white people in the same way we are all supposed to show respect to other races? Really?

I'm allowed to say bad things about the American race, because I'm American. Now, if a Canadian came along and started talking smack, I'd be within rights to call her racist and never talk to her again. But I wouldn't, because Canadians are just like that and can't help it.

[Edit] I'd just like to say at this moment that I have nothing against Canadians. Some of my best friends are Canadian. Hell, I'm married to a Canadian. But even I have to admit that Canadians are different from Americans. Not worse--just a bit less upstanding and patriotic. They aren't made to be true heroes like Americans--and that's fine. Canadians are just that way, and I accept it. They have good things too, like maple syrup and pizza at McDonald's. [/Edit]

In the same vein... Apparently, women are allowed to call themselves bitches, but men aren't.

Case in point is the video for Livvi Franc's song Now I'm That Bitch. She sings the word bitch throughout the song with impunity, but on the two occasions that rapper Pitbull uses the word in the video, it's censored.

Notwithstanding any of the discussion that came before it, this:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I'm allowed to say bad things about the American race, because I'm American. Now, if a Canadian came along and started talking smack, I'd be within rights to call her racist and never talk to her again.

is brain-meltingly stupid and wrong, and I sincerely hope was nothing more than a failed attempt at satire. Claiming that having quality x in any way qualifies you to talk smack about people with quality x is an unabashedly terrible argument, and it doesn't get any better, no matter what you substitute for x. Anyway, as you were.

The self-denigration aspect of being able to mock the group you're in is a little more complex than that, I think.

Let's say that I call myself a Fat American Pig (FAP, from now on), perhaps in a song. Presumably, I can say whatever I want about myself and assign traits to FAP-ness that I may or may not explicitly have. Some people who want to be associated with FAP-ness, the traits inherent to it, or myself will latch on to it and become FAPpers. The people who share some of the associations, but don't want to be known as a FAPper, will rail against it. (I'm an Amaerican, and not all of us are Fat or Pigs!) However, as I am perceived as an insider, my denigrations of FAPpers will be perceived with less hostility, and potentially as a critique or social commentary, than an outsider using the same language. They're more likely to be perceived as passing judgement or carpetbagging. (How dare that Canadian write such a song!)

Then again, I'm probably just doing this to make a buck. That FAPpers identify with me is a bonus (or maybe even the goal).

Maj wrote:In the same vein... Apparently, women are allowed to call themselves bitches, but men aren't.

Case in point is the video for Livvi Franc's song Now I'm That Bitch. She sings the word bitch throughout the song with impunity, but on the two occasions that rapper Pitbull uses the word in the video, it's censored.

It's a little more complicated than that. "Bitch" has more than one meaning, only some of which are obscene. Franc's verses are ambiguous and you could claim that it's not an insult. Pitbull's are linguistically clear.

-Username17

People can make fun of their own group as much as they want. Look at any comedian, guarantee they've made fun of people like themselves as part of their routine at some point.

This can even work if you aren't actually a member of that group but the other person knows you well enough to not take offense, which is why friends often make racist and sexist remarks at each other without getting offended because they realize they're just fucking around. It's also why people in the military are often comfortable with this sort of thing since they're clearly having to trust each other in order to serve their country together, so the white soldier will call the black one a n****r, he'll call the white guy a cracker, and no one is actually upset about it.

If you're perceived as not being a member of that group though watch out. Otherwise, mock away!

This:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I'm allowed to say bad things about the American race, because I'm American.

is not right. However, this:

violence in the media wrote:The self-denigration aspect of being able to mock the group you're in is a little more complex than that, I think.

Let's say that I call myself a Fat American Pig (FAP, from now on), perhaps in a song. Presumably, I can say whatever I want about myself and assign traits to FAP-ness that I may or may not explicitly have. Some people who want to be associated with FAP-ness, the traits inherent to it, or myself will latch on to it and become FAPpers. The people who share some of the associations, but don't want to be known as a FAPper, will rail against it. (I'm an Amaerican, and not all of us are Fat or Pigs!) However, as I am perceived as an insider, my denigrations of FAPpers will be perceived with less hostility, and potentially as a critique or social commentary, than an outsider using the same language. They're more likely to be perceived as passing judgement or carpetbagging. (How dare that Canadian write such a song!)

Then again, I'm probably just doing this to make a buck. That FAPpers identify with me is a bonus (or maybe even the goal).

is spot on. It is ok to denigrate yourself for a laugh or a buck or to build consensus with others that may be like you or for whatever reason, but lumping people into your group based on a sterotype that do not identify with your point of view is simply wrong. I am half Sicilian, part American Indian and even if I wanted consider myself a Greasy Italian and a Drunk Indian and even if I saw those traits in others, lumping all Italians and Indians together for bashing is bigoted.

Oh and I guess since I am part American Indian, I should tell all you white fucks to stop all your posing and get the fuck out off the land you stole from me and my kin. We natives don't need or want you here.

Yeah, cause slaves got their 40 acres and a mule, and who do you think those 40 acres were taken from? Native Americans.

ANYBODY, can make fun of themselves, and that includes ANY group they are a part of.

First of all, "race" is a fuzzy classification rather than any kind of fundamental truth, so different people have different ideas of what "race" is or what a specifically named race (such as "Caucasian" or "Black" or "Irish") consists of. However, I doubt that "American" is considered a race by any but a select few, unless you're talking about American Indians. Anybody referring to "the American race" is either stupid, sarcastic, or talking about a different kind of race.

Citizenship is usually distinct from race. At the very least it's a subset. Although citizenship usually begins as an accident of birth, after a point it becomes somewhat of a choice. It's usually a choice without a lot of freedom, but changing your citizenship (which is a legal construct) is much easier than changing your race (which is a way other people classify you). Therefore, it is possible to make critical generalizations about nationalities without being "racist". Saying that 'About half of voting Americans are stupid or evil (because they voted for George W. Bush twice)' is very different from saying that 'Most black people are lazy because they have dark skin' or 'White people are mentally unstable due to a lack of genetic diversity'. In all of the above cases the hypothetical speaker is bigoted, but being bigoted against a nationality is not the same as being bigoted against a race.

And race is no claim to property. Just as a person's race is not their fault, it is also not an entitlement.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Therefore, it is possible to make critical generalizations about nationalities without being "racist".

Right. At that point you are just a bigot. Why not include that Jews are shylocks (because they are deeply tied into banking and are crooks like Bernie Madhoff) or those hailing from the African nations are primitives interested in violence and war (as the ongoing wars and genocide show in in Africa or play out downtown in any US city).

And race is no claim to property. Just as a person's race is not their fault, it is also not an entitlement.

Hmm fair point. Then, as a member of the destroyed-by-white-people Navajo Nation (or Apache, records are sketchy) and by virtue of my nationality alone, I should tell all you white fucks to stop all your posing and get the fuck out off the land you stole from me and my kin. We natives don't need or want you here.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I'm allowed to say bad things about the American race...

I just re-read this and caught this point. Its very odd that you subconsciously thought of Americans as a race before you made your points in subsequent posts. This is one of the issues I have with your philosophy.

When you talk nationality, you are talking race a good deal of the time even if that isn't the intended goal. Is it any wonder people think disparaging remarks about a nationality are racist given that those who try to parse the difference don't always make it clear to themselves what they are talking about?

He was being ironic.

-Crissa

You also need to take the 'power' factor into consideration, too.

While it is often a matter of in-group versus out-group (in fact, I'd say it's the primary consideration), when someone from a higher social class subgroup uses an epithet against a lower one it engenders more offense than than someone from a different, but still equal lower social class in the same subgroup using the same slur.

For example, a gay male would probably take less offense (though still some) from being called a gay slur from a heterosexual transmale than a straight male. Similarly it's marginally less offensive to be called an n-word by a lower-class Native American than another lower-class white.

Of course, you could probably rank the hierarchy of class subgroups and conjure up some charts, which creates some problems. While I'm sure that a gay white man is overall higher up on the social strata than a straight black male, comparing a white woman to a black male is harder. While a black male has some very obvious advantages (more pay) he also has some obvious disadvantages (more police harassment). So who knows.

Lich-Loved wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Therefore, it is possible to make critical generalizations about nationalities without being "racist".

Right. At that point you are just a bigot. Why not include that Jews are shylocks (because they are deeply tied into banking and are crooks like Bernie Madhoff) or those hailing from the African nations are primitives interested in violence and war (as the ongoing wars and genocide show in in Africa or play out downtown in any US city).

Sure. There are innumerable ways to be an asshole, but they aren't all racism.

Lich-Loved wrote:

And race is no claim to property. Just as a person's race is not their fault, it is also not an entitlement.

Hmm fair point. Then, as a member of the destroyed-by-white-people Navajo Nation (or Apache, records are sketchy) and by virtue of my nationality alone, I should tell all you white fucks to stop all your posing and get the fuck out off the land you stole from me and my kin. We natives don't need or want you here.

When you put a smilie after a paragraph, does that mean that you're being sarcastic?

I assume that you are being sarcastic, but you raise an important point. If you're Navajo then you have no ethnic claim to any land in the United States any more than any other American whose land was stolen from American Indians. The Navajo nation 'stole' what land it has from the Pueblo peoples when they moved from Canada to the American Southwest.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:You also need to take the 'power' factor into consideration, too.

While it is often a matter of in-group versus out-group (in fact, I'd say it's the primary consideration), when someone from a higher social class subgroup uses an epithet against a lower one it engenders more offense than than someone from a different, but still equal lower social class in the same subgroup using the same slur.

For example, a gay male would probably take less offense (though still some) from being called a gay slur from a heterosexual transmale than a straight male. Similarly it's marginally less offensive to be called an n-word by a lower-class Native American than another lower-class white.

Of course, you could probably rank the hierarchy of class subgroups and conjure up some charts, which creates some problems. While I'm sure that a gay white man is overall higher up on the social strata than a straight black male, comparing a white woman to a black male is harder. While a black male has some very obvious advantages (more pay) he also has some obvious disadvantages (more police harassment). So who knows.

Nah, this isn't right. It is bullshit social relativism in a weak attempt to cover bigotry or racism. If you are black and call me a cracker/whitey/greaser/whatever, it is not less offensive than me calling the same black guy that one thing we white people "ain't allowed to say no way". If a black guy hates me or disparages me because I am white, that is pure, old fashioned racism. If you can't stomach substituting the word black in place of what ever group you are speaking about, then you are being racist/bigoted. Aiming your criticism at Whites and somehow claiming, through some bullshit scale of "who is allowed to hate who" is white-sheet reasoning; it is no different than the Klan claiming blacks and Jews are subhuman (lower on some bullshit scale) so they don't matter.

This is one reason why I can't take the Left seriously (not that I like the Right at all mind you): somehow being white is a crime, being a man is a second crime, being successful is another crime and therefore being a successful white man is a Serious Crime and makes one an Enemy of the People. These Crimes Against the Left can be absolved to some degree if the white man: votes or is active for the Left, is gay or transgendered, and apologizes a lot for being white and a man and for being successful. Your social strata reasoning above is this exact philosophy in plain text and it is disgusting.

And since I am ranting, I might as well say that I am both white and a man - I had little choice in the matter - but neither of those things am I willing to change or renounce. I do not apologize for my success because I earned it. I suppose that makes me the Enemy of many here. Too bad, really, that you have to see it that way.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:When you put a smilie after a paragraph, does that mean that you're being sarcastic?

Well, I am not being serious, that is for certain. I am part Indian and my wife is as well, actually, but everything after that was rubbish.

Lich-Loved wrote:And since I am ranting, I might as well say that I am both white and a man - I had little choice in the matter - but neither of those things am I willing to change or renounce. I do not apologize for my success because I earned it. I suppose that makes me the Enemy of many here. Too bad, really, that you have to see it that way.

Good for you. I came across my success in the traditional manner of happenstance, skullduggery, and nepotism.

Also, what's with the "I'm a white man" when you're ranting about persecution of the American male and "I'm a Native American" when you're claiming minority status cred?

Lastly? Ghandi said that, "honesty is incompatible with amassing a large fortune." Since dishonesty is defined as a lack of honesty or integrity and a disposition to defraud or decieve, fraud is generally considered damaging to society, and a public enemy is a person whose activities are criminal and extremely damaging to society, then a singular person that accumulates a disproportionate amount of a society's wealth for personal benefit at the expense of others is an "Enemy of the People" by definition. How the hell could it be not?

tl;dr: The greater your success, the more likely you screwed someone in the process.

violence in the media wrote:

Lich-Loved wrote:And since I am ranting, I might as well say that I am both white and a man - I had little choice in the matter - but neither of those things am I willing to change or renounce. I do not apologize for my success because I earned it. I suppose that makes me the Enemy of many here. Too bad, really, that you have to see it that way.

Also, what's with the "I'm a white man" when you're ranting about persecution of the American male and "I'm a Native American" when you're claiming minority status cred?

People who are mostly Caucasian but with some American Indian blood usually just look White. Looking and being mostly White is enough to pick up the White Man's Burden (which I use here sarcastically to indicate the benefits of being a white male).

Also, you can be whatever race you want on the internet.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Also, you can be whatever race you want on the internet.

You know, I keep forgetting this.

violence in the media wrote:Lastly? Ghandi said that, "honesty is incompatible with amassing a large fortune." Since dishonesty is defined as a lack of honesty or integrity and a disposition to defraud or decieve, fraud is generally considered damaging to society, and a public enemy is a person whose activities are criminal and extremely damaging to society, then a singular person that accumulates a disproportionate amount of a society's wealth for personal benefit at the expense of others is an "Enemy of the People" by definition. How the hell could it be not?

How the hell could it not? Well, for example, you could be a dumbass who takes any premise as true as long as it was spoken by Ghandi, because hey, everything that every moral exemplar has ever said is both true and non-contradictory with any other such statements. Your argument is logically valid (P, P -> C, therefore C), but factually incorrect (P is false), because honesty is not incompatible with amassing a large fortune. I have no idea why you're prejudiced against wealthy people, but get over it, because it's dumb. Even if your premise were true, you'd still have to define large, because let's face it, these days, just being a millionaire isn't anywhere near enough to have a significant amount of power of the type you're referring to.

Come now, Gelare, you're getting your panties twisted over nothing. I'm not particularly prejudiced against wealthy people, I'm just prejudiced against the self-aggrandizing notion that anyone "did it themselves," "earned it," or did so without inflicting hardship on someone else, either directly or indirectly.

Make your money. Have your money. Enjoy your money. Don't try to soothe yourself by insisting that I buy your line of "honest, hard work" bullshit.

VitM, I just read your response and laughed out loud because I read you telling me that my panties are in a twist and that I'm full of bullshit and I thought to myself, "My, what a reasonable response he's made." In Denspeak, that right there is basically us agreeing to disagree, which is, you know, fine. The Den pretty far from standard procedure in a civilized debate, but I guess we've grown accustomed to it. Anyway, yeah, I think it's possible to get piles of money without being dishonest (not to say that some rich people aren't dishonest, some totally are), you don't. Fair enough.

Gelare wrote:VitM, I just read your response and laughed out loud because I read you telling me that my panties are in a twist and that I'm full of bullshit and I thought to myself, "My, what a reasonable response he's made." In Denspeak, that right there is basically us agreeing to disagree, which is, you know, fine. The Den pretty far from standard procedure in a civilized debate, but I guess we've grown accustomed to it. Anyway, yeah, I think it's possible to get piles of money without being dishonest (not to say that some rich people aren't dishonest, some totally are), you don't. Fair enough.

I'm honestly glad that you found it amusing, as that was the manner that it was intended. We do live in a strange world here in the Den, don't we?

violence in the media wrote:Also, what's with the "I'm a white man" when you're ranting about persecution of the American male and "I'm a Native American" when you're claiming minority status cred?

My bad. I was asked about that earlier and thought I clarified things but apparently not, so please allow me explain. I am part Native American (great grandmother on my fathers side was from "a big Arizona tribe", my great grandfather was in Arizona well before it was made a state in 1912) but I look as white as Wonder bread. I was simply spewing crap and putting everyone on a bit when I talked about land rights and whatnot. I make no claim to my background, moral or otherwise, and consider it no more than an interesting piece of family history.

Dude, at least I attended local native ceremonies while growing up as my community affinity. Which means I love potlucks, frybread, and salmon, none of which really have anything to do with the tribe from which my grandparents were related to.

Though my grandfather wasn't much of an inspirational figure, and my grandmother on that side died before I was born.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Dude, at least I attended local native ceremonies while growing up as my community affinity. Which means I love potlucks, frybread, and salmon, none of which really have anything to do with the tribe from which my grandparents were related to.

Though my grandfather wasn't much of an inspirational figure, and my grandmother on that side died before I was born.

-Crissa

I never claimed I was a good Indian.

According to family scuttlebutt, having a Native American in the family was seen as disgrace that was kind of hushed up in the "better circles back East" where "back East" meant Kansas. My wife said it was "a scandal" in her family as well, and that was in Ohio. Now my relatives were in Arizona during the Civil War and out there having an Indian wife was not seen as big of a deal (I guess) but the folks "back east" didn't cotton to it to well, I guess. I now wish I knew more about my background, but both my mother and father were estranged from their families and left home at an early age and I didn't have much contact with my grandparents on either side at all, so I never really had the chance to have any sort of cultural exposure to anything in my family tree except small snippets I can barely remember as a very young boy.

Growing up, I spent my youth in the Black Hills of South Dakota, which is Sioux country to this day. But the Indians there hated the whites and once, one pulled a gun on my dad when he stopped at a scenic overlook along a highway to take a picture. These Sioux weren't too many generations from the ones that kicked Custer's ass and they wanted everyone there to know it. Showing up where they were at or running into a band of them on those long, empty roads meant a stomping might well be on the way. Given this, you can see why I might have avoided deeper cultural interaction with the natives near my hometown.