Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 150: Moore votes the better to speak Frank(en)ly

(+) Yeah! (+)

Whatever. Whenever 149 finishes up conversation can move here.
---

Wtf... Homeless people pooping in the street has called Hepatitis breakouts in California??? Uhhh...
---

LMFAO Elizabeth Warren tries to play the race card when Trump jokingly refers to her as Pocahontas. Says it is a racial slur. I will remind my son he is in trouble next time he asks to watch Pocahontas because it is a racial slur. LMFAO.
---

Corrik posted...

LMFAO Elizabeth Warren tries to play the race card when Trump jokingly refers to her as Pocahontas. Says it is a racial slur. I will remind my son he is in trouble next time he asks to watch Pocahontas because it is a racial slur. LMFAO.

LMFAO you don't see the difference in context between referring to the movie Pocahontas, and calling a person Pocahontas.
---

Ashethan posted...

Corrik posted...

LMFAO Elizabeth Warren tries to play the race card when Trump jokingly refers to her as Pocahontas. Says it is a racial slur. I will remind my son he is in trouble next time he asks to watch Pocahontas because it is a racial slur. LMFAO.

LMFAO you don't see the difference in context between referring to the movie Pocahontas, and calling a person Pocahontas.

This.

It's basically the same idea as why it's racist to go "Yeah, sure, Squanto" or "Whatever, Ching-Chang" to somebody who... Isn't named that.
---

I knew a girl who jokingly called herself Pocahontas. She's a respected figure. It can be done with a sense of reverence instead of mockery. It's not really the same as Ching-chang.

Not saying it's something Trump should have said but yeah let's call it for what it is.
---

Context is everything is the main message for Corrik
---

Yeah the big problem was the setting more than "Pocahontas is a racial slur"

Just kind of a dumb place to say that
---

man the titles for corrik containment topics are terrible
---

Lopen posted...

I knew a girl who jokingly called herself Pocahontas. She's a respected figure. It can be done with a sense of reverence instead of mockery. It's not really the same as Ching-chang.

Not saying it's something Trump should have said but yeah let's call it for what it is.

The silver medal in missing the point goes to Lopen.

Edited because obviously Corrik got the gold
---

Is that because you forfeited the gold and I originally had the silver?

I get why it was dumb of him to say that where he was. I get why it could perceived as Trump being 'racist' in a way if you really try to break down the motivations on why he made the comment, harmless as it is on its face.

I'm saying comparing it to "ching-chang" is misleading at best. It's not an inherently racially charged thing to call someone like that is.
---

Kenri posted...

Like, you're implying it's based on skin color, so I'm asking a pretty simple follow up question. Idk what this overreaction is.

It's a fucking joke. Don't stroke your own ego like you can arrive at some insightful "gotcha" over it.
---

kevwaffles posted...

It's a fucking joke. Don't stroke you're own ego like you can arrive at some insightful "gotcha" over it.

Sorry I mistook your joke for a genuine belief tons and tons of people actually have, I guess.

I'm still not sure where the hostility is coming from but uhhhh maybe workshop your shitty standup routine next time? Did I do it right? Is that how we're interacting now?
---

Kenri posted...

All academia is self-important but that doesn't make it bullshit. My definition has a lot more factual and historical backing than any of this nonsense about skin color, which at most correlates and frequently doesn't even get that far.

The point is it's stupid to use the word "white people" in the context of "racism" and not have it mean literally "white people." Come up with a different term. It means the field is lazy or is filled with people who took classes on race studies and wanted to pretend what they were studying applied to more things than it actually does.
---

Lopen posted...

Kenri posted...

All academia is self-important but that doesn't make it bullshit. My definition has a lot more factual and historical backing than any of this nonsense about skin color, which at most correlates and frequently doesn't even get that far.

The point is it's stupid to use the word "white people" in the context of "racism" and not have it mean literally "white people." Come up with a different term. It means the field is lazy or is filled with people who took classes on race studies and wanted to pretend what they were studying applied to more things than it actually does.

You come up with a different term. I don't care what the term is, I'm just using the one I'm familiar with, which is commonly used in my field, and which we were already discussing when I chimed in.

It's not like "white" and "black" are literal terms referring to skin color anyway so I'm not even sure what your issue is.
---

If black people had been the "dominant group" in history, you wouldn't suddenly start calling people "white" as a definition of being on the upper hand of racism/power structure/whatever.
---

kevwaffles posted...

If black people had been the "dominant group" in history, you wouldn't suddenly start calling people "white" as a definition of being on the upper hand of racism/power structure/whatever.

Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that historically, groups can gain or lose "whiteness", or never have it at all despite a light skin tone.
---

I think the big problem is more that when you say "only white people can be racist" it sends a poor message, because no matter how long people have been in this field and have been immersed in its arbitrary redefinition of words, people aren't thinking of that definition instinctively. And trying to change your definition of "white people" to "the ruling class" it's one that almost propagates racism vs white people inherently-- particularly unnecessarily when by your own admission it's less about any given race and more about whichever group of people happens to be the ruling class at a given time.

Probably opens up a can of worms around discussion on the problems with the way of teaching in the field. I honestly don't think I'm too far off the mark when I think the self-importance of academia is at root.
---

Oh is he still calling only white people racist and if a black person were to be racist they magically become a white person ala Michael Jackson?
---

CFPB is under a hiring freeze during the fight over who is in charge.
---

Lopen posted...

I think the big problem is more that when you say "only white people can be racist" it sends a poor message, because no matter how long people have been in this field and have been immersed in its arbitrary redefinition of words, people aren't thinking of that definition instinctively.

True, but you'll recall I also said they were wrong about that.

Lopen posted...

And trying to change your definition of "white people" to "the ruling class" it's one that almost propagates racism vs white people inherently-- particularly unnecessarily when by your own admission it's less about any given race and more about whichever group of people happens to be the ruling class at a given time.

But again, I don't know why you're arguing that I'm trying to "change" the definition when 1) the whole discussion has been about academia and 2) you seem willing to accept that this is an actual concept I'm talking about and not something I made up.

Corrik posted...

Oh is he still calling only white people racist and if a black person were to be racist they magically become a white person ala Michael Jackson?

Yeah you nailed it, Michael Jackson has actually been my go-to example this whole time.
---

Lopen posted...

And trying to change your definition of "white people" to "the ruling class" it's one that almost propagates racism vs white people inherently

The point I think youre missing is that there is no such thing as inherent white people.

Its a class thats been created out of a huge mish-mash of ancestry and ethnicities.
---

Well the main difference is I'm not really targeting you as much as your field at this point. You've basically established an internally consistent definition of words-- but most people aren't doubting that you're being internally consistent. They're doubting whether the words you're using are the ones you should be using, and whether the words make sense to be used at this point.

Like maybe you didn't shift the goalposts but at some point they were shifted-- presumably because the field got a bit less American-history centric and people realized "this isn't as much about skin color as we thought" but still couldn't swallow their pride and stop using the terms white, black, and racism for concepts they'd been mistakenly been attributing to skin color.

Again that's all just theory-- I don't really have any idea of how using the words racism, black, and white developed there, but the core of the argument has always been "this is asinine" and you saying "it's not asinine because that's how academia talks" which isn't really a counter-argument for anyone, and which naturally transitions me into the viewpoint of "academia as it relates to this particular topic is asinine"
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The point I think youre missing is that there is no such thing as inherent white people.

Its a class thats been created out of a huge mish-mash of ancestry and ethnicities.

Lopen posted...

particularly unnecessarily when by your own admission it's less about any given race and more about whichever group of people happens to be the ruling class at a given time.

You're right I sure did miss that one. You had to look to the second half of the statement to see me grasp that point.
---

What do you want the phrase white people to mean then, Lopen?
---

... unless you're saying "white people" has never referred to the color of one's skin when it was said colloquially

And if that's your point there's the door bud
---

It's not about what I want "white people" to mean it's about what it actually means when people (not academia, actual people) say it.
---

Lopen posted...

It's not about what I want "white people" to mean it's about what it actually means when people say it.

What does it actually mean when people say it?
---

Better question for you, do you think it means "the ruling class" when said colloquially? Floyd Mayweather has a ton of money, way more power than most people. Do you think people would call him a white guy?
---

wasn't the whole discussion about academia (like kenri repeatedly pointed out)?

like, i'm not entirely sure what your point is. people should stop using academic jargon period...?
---

Lopen posted...

Better question for you, do you think it means "the ruling class" when said colloquially? Floyd Mayweather has a ton of money, way more power than most people. Do you think people would call him a white guy?

No, I think it means certain ethnicities that have over time coagulated to be the ruling class. This is not a conscious classification for most, but subconsciously its drilled into American society.

People inherently know that Michael Jackson wasnt a white person in his later years, the same way people inherently know that Hulk Hogan isnt an orange person.

Like we talked about before, the Irish didnt used to be considered white people. Now they are.
---

Lopen posted...

Is that because you forfeited the gold and I originally had the silver?

I get why it was dumb of him to say that where he was. I get why it could perceived as Trump being 'racist' in a way if you really try to break down the motivations on why he made the comment, harmless as it is on its face.

I'm saying comparing it to "ching-chang" is misleading at best. It's not an inherently racially charged thing to call someone like that is.

Fair enough, but I notice you glossed over "Squanto," which is pretty much identical.

Squanto was also a respected figure and isn't really "racially charged," but that's typically used negatively in the same way "Ching-Chang" is.
---

The point is the academic jargon in this instance is a disgrace to academic jargon that's at direct odds with the colloquial definition-- like to the point where it loads the word to mean something you claim it does not.

It'd be like if say in wastewater science we started calling fecal matter "the Japanese" or something. But worse because at least you couldn't confuse people who colloquially have referred to Japanese people on whether you're talking about a person in the usual use contexts.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

the same way people inherently know that Hulk Hogan isnt an orange person.

I almost said this before (but about Donald Trump) lmao
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Squanto was also a respected figure and isn't really "racially charged," but that's typically used negatively in the same way "Ching-Chang" is.

Well, I've personally never heard of Squanto being used in that way so I glossed over it. To me it'd be pretty similar to Pocahontas-- you'd need to read into context to determine whether it's racist or not.
---

I really dont get what Lopen thinks white people means when said colloquially.

Like, yes, actual skin color is a common way to use the phrase, but its not 100% accurate the way the combination of heritage and current societal norms is.
---

Lopen posted...

It'd be like if say in wastewater science we started calling fecal matter "the Japanese" or something.

if there's consensus in the wastewater science community that fecal matter should be called "the japanese" i don't see what the big deal is.

if your point is "there's a lot of terms in academia that are silly," sure. i know media studies uses a lot of silly terms. what can you do.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I really dont get what Lopen thinks white people means when said colloquially.

I don't believe you.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Squanto was also a respected figure and isn't really "racially charged," but that's typically used negatively in the same way "Ching-Chang" is.

Well, I've personally never heard of Squanto being used in that way so I glossed over it. To me it'd be pretty similar to Pocahontas-- you'd need to read into context to determine whether it's racist or not.

"Squanto" is the typical "Generic Native American name" used to label/be dismissive/etc. "Tonto" is a close second.

The point is that you'd be very hard pressed to find somebody purposely calling somebody by another name like that to be something positive. You'd typically find such things to be said as "Like Pocahontas," or "This generation's Pocahontas." Just throwing it out at somebody of that ancestry pretty much has no way of being intended to be positive, because you're basically stripping them of identity, which is the whole point of when it's used as an insult. When people say stuff like "Whatever you say, Squanto," they're implying you're not worth being identified beyond your skin color/background/whatever and the generic name they've applied to those people.
---

Lopen posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I really dont get what Lopen thinks white people means when said colloquially.

I don't believe you.

I'll second him because I have no idea what you're arguing it means either, but I'm guessing you also won't believe me?
---

Its like he thinks we are being intentionally obtuse instead of just accepting that when people say white people they mean and always have meant people of a certain pigment scale ONLY
---

Also, considering Trump tweeted

"Pocahontas just stated that the Democrats, lead by the legendary Crooked Hillary Clinton, rigged the Primaries! Lets go FBI & Justice Dept."

earlier in the month, I don't think it's hard at all to know he's being demeaning right away.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

if your point is "there's a lot of terms in academia that are silly," sure. i know media studies uses a lot of silly terms. what can you do.

Well, it's only a real problem when it's repurposing words or expressions we already use into a particularly negative connotation.

StealThisSheen posted...

When people say stuff like "Whatever you say, Squanto," they're implying you're not worth being identified beyond your skin color/background/whatever and the generic name they've applied to those people.

I agree. Hence why I said context is necessary. But to note that's not actually what Trump did, either. He didn't really go into why she at times was called Pocahontas just mentioned that she was-- which again, bad idea to even mention given where he was, but not necessarily "racist" per se since you don't know the reasoning why.
---

Heres another wrestling related example

Taz

Would you call him white? Black? Something else?
---

Lopen posted...

Well, it's only a real problem when it's repurposing words or expressions we already use into a particularly negative connotation.

why? if kenri uses "white" and "black" the way he does in a conversation with another history major, they're not gonna go "wtf are you talking about?!?" as long as you don't randomly throw it around in regular conversation it should be fine.
---

Lopen posted...

I agree. Hence why I said context is necessary. But to note that's not actually what Trump did, either. He didn't really go into why she at times was called Pocahontas just mentioned that she was-- which again, bad idea to even mention given where he was, but not necessarily "racist" per se since you don't know the reasoning why.

He's been calling her "Pocahontas" for awhile now before this, much like his other "nicknames" for people. >_>

It's not JUST where/when he said it that's the problem. The problem is that he's been doing it to begin with, and now on top of that he said it where he did
---

Lopen posted...

Well, it's only a real problem when it's repurposing words or expressions we already use into a particularly negative connotation.

Repurposing?

Thats...incorrect. Completely.
---

Taz isn't white, but I'm not exactly comfortable saying he's black either.

The world isn't black and white, though. I wouldn't call Shinsuke Nakamura white either but he sure as hell ain't black.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Repurposing?

Thats...incorrect. Completely.

Oh yeah? So you're saying this concept being studied and labeled as such in academia predates its colloquial use?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

It's not JUST where/when he said it that's the problem. The problem is that he's been doing it to begin with, and now on top of that he said it where he did

Right, sure.

Like I said I'm not saying Trump isn't a bit racist there. I just said comparing it to Ching Chong was a bit off base.
---