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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lopen posted...

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.

Not really. Stuff like "Squanto" and "Pocahontas" used in that way IS basically the Native American's "Ching Chong." They're used in the exact same way. "Squanto" to Native Americans is the same as "Ching Chong" to Chinese people. They're used to belittle, demean, and insult.

The only difference are that Squanto and Pocahontas are actually existing names of historic figures. Doesn't change the meaning behind the slur.
---

Lopen posted...

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

Well yeah, under our current racial classifications, hes Asian.

Even though Indians, Arabs, and Russians all are also ethnically from Asia.

Its a really dumb system. People dont really take the time to examine WHAT they mean when they use racial terms until theyre presented with edge cases. This is why the sociological definitions are tighter.
---

Lopen posted...

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?

No. The academic use explains the colloquial meanings, since the colloquial meanings are constantly in flux
---

Lopen posted...

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

FWIW black isn't used nearly as much in the same way (though it still sees occasional use, as does brown). That's why when I first commented on the article that started this discussion, I didn't use it at all and referenced being "denied whiteness" instead.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

They're used in the exact same way. "Squanto" to Native Americans is the same as "Ching Chong" to Chinese people. They're used to belittle, demean, and insult.

I mean, maybe I just don't hang around enough people who are racist against Native Americans but I don't think that's the case.

I'd sooner expect like... High Chief Random Nonsense to be the more mocking thing. Like what you're describing is more like calling a Chinese person Kelly Hu or something.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Lopen posted...

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.

Not really. Stuff like "Squanto" and "Pocahontas" used in that way IS basically the Native American's "Ching Chong." They're used in the exact same way. "Squanto" to Native Americans is the same as "Ching Chong" to Chinese people. They're used to belittle, demean, and insult.

The only difference are that Squanto and Pocahontas are actually existing names of historic figures. Doesn't change the meaning behind the slur.

Still it IS different when Trump uses it, in a way.

Hes not using it as a shorthand to be dismissive of her heritage. Hes using it as a shorthand to be dismissive of her CLAIM of heritage.

Hes derisively calling her Pocahontas because, in his mind, shes NOT Native American

Its an odd case
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

They're used in the exact same way. "Squanto" to Native Americans is the same as "Ching Chong" to Chinese people. They're used to belittle, demean, and insult.

I mean, maybe I just don't hang around enough people who are racist against Native Americans but I don't think that's the case.

I'd sooner expect like... High Chief Random Nonsense to be the more mocking thing. Like what you're describing is more like calling a Chinese person Kelly Hu or something.

http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans

I mean, there's a reason it shows up on stuff like that. >_>
---

Jakyl25 posted...

No. The academic use explains the colloquial meanings, since the colloquial meanings are constantly in flux

1. They're actually not, though. Unless you're claiming Nakamura would've been considered white in the past. Taz is more shaky, but I mean, gun to my head I wouldn't have a huge problem calling him black. Like, it's not really as complicated as you're making it out to be.

2. More importantly, if the academic use is explaining colloquial meanings, it should use different words to clarify this.

3. There is no colloquial use of the word white and black that would cover everything Kenri was on about anyway, so that's kinda nonsense. Dude was saying Irish ancestors were black. You're explaining colloquial meanings by flat out saying they're something that they're not and never have been. That's not explaining as much as redefining.
---

Though, yes, just calling Chinese women "Kelly Hu" is also racist, so... >_>
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Though, yes, just calling Chinese women "Kelly Hu" is also racist, so... >_>

Not necessarily, though. You can project a racist reason to call someone that but that's not necessarily accurate.

Ching Chong I can't really see being unracist in any context.
---

You know, that lists prolific entries consisting of ____-n***** is even more of a point towards academic definitions of black.

The N word obviously is derived from Negroe, which in and of itself literally means black. Yet people dont just use the word to describe those of African descent. They also use variants of it against Native Americans and Arabic people, despite neither of those groups having what colloquially you would describe as black skin.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Though, yes, just calling Chinese women "Kelly Hu" is also racist, so... >_>

Not necessarily, though. You can project a racist reason to call someone that but that's not necessarily accurate.

Ching Chong I can't really see being unracist in any context.

What non-racist reason would you have to call all Chinese women "Kelly Hu"

Please tell me

Obviously "You're pretty like Kelly Hu" isn't racist.

But if you're just going "Hey, Kelly Hu" to Chinese women, then... Yeah, there's a problem, there.

If you're calling somebody a name that is not their name and is one based on their race/skin color/etc., it's racist. This is pretty simple. >_>
---

StealThisSheen posted...

What non-racist reason would you have to call all Chinese women "Kelly Hu"

We don't have evidence Trump calls all Native American women Pocahontas though
---

Lopen posted...

1. They're actually not, though. Unless you're claiming Nakamura would've been considered white in the past. Taz is more shaky, but I mean, gun to my head I wouldn't have a huge problem calling him black. Like, it's not really as complicated as you're making it out to be.

Im claiming Conor McGregor would not have been considered white in the past. Thats the kind of flux Im talking about
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

What non-racist reason would you have to call all Chinese women "Kelly Hu"

We don't have evidence Trump calls all Native American women Pocahontas though

Then replace it with "any"

If you're calling a random Chinese women "Kelly Hu" without proceeding it with some kind of attempt to liken them to her, and are literally just going "Hey, Kelly Hu," then there's still a problem there
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The N word obviously is derived from Negroe, which in and of itself literally means black. Yet people dont just use the word to describe those of African descent. They also use variants of it against Native Americans and Arabic people, despite neither of those groups having what colloquially you would describe as black skin.

If you want to redefine the N word for academic use you're free to. That one's already been repurposed by racists to berate whatever the hell they want to hate on at the moment so you're not doing any real damage to it.
---

Like, let's say Jakyl was Native American, and his name was literally Jakyl

If I know his name is Jakyl, but I just always call him "Tonto," without any real explanation or attempt to do something like "You're perceptive like Tonto," then I'm being racist.

Likewise, if I run into a random Native American on the street and I just go "Yo, Squanto," I'm being racist then, too.

The key point is that if you're calling somebody by a name based solely on their race/claimed race/whatever to do with race, it's inherently racist.
---

Lopen posted...

If you want to redefine the N word for academic use you're free to. That one's already been repurposed by racists to berate whatever the hell they want to hate on at the moment so you're not doing any real damage to it.

I really fail to see how the academic use of white is doing harm to the colloquial use of white.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

If you're calling a random Chinese women "Kelly Hu" without proceeding it with some kind of attempt to liken them to her, and are literally just going "Hey, Kelly Hu," then there's still a problem there

It's a problem yeah. Not necessarily one born of racism, though. There could be some Kelly Hu like quality to them that we don't really know about.

Like socially oblivious for sure, and probably a dumb nickname, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it racist on its face.
---

And dont you think its significant that racists use a word that literally means black to label whatever the hell they want to hate on at the moment?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I really fail to see how the academic use of white is doing harm to the colloquial use of white.

You don't see how there's harm when people who have been using it colloquially for years upon years before entering academia now have it rebranded to basically mean "the enemy" (because let's face it, not many people identify as the ruling class, even if they totally are)

You don't see how that could possibly have negative repercussions in how they digest the material?
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

If you're calling a random Chinese women "Kelly Hu" without proceeding it with some kind of attempt to liken them to her, and are literally just going "Hey, Kelly Hu," then there's still a problem there

It's a problem yeah. Not necessarily one born of racism, though. There could be some Kelly Hu like quality to them that we don't really know about.

Like socially oblivious for sure, and probably a dumb nickname, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it racist on its face.

I think if the person is Chinese and the name chosen is "Kelly Hu," it's safe to say there's a 99.99999% chance it's racist. I mean, what quality does she have that other pretty actresses that play similar roles but aren't Chinese don't? >_>
---

Lopen posted...

If you want to redefine the N word for academic use you're free to.

This literally already happened like 50 years ago. There's a fairly well-known feminist book called "Woman as N*****", for example.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I mean, what quality does she have that other pretty actresses that play similar roles but aren't Chinese don't? >_>

Who are you to doubt Kelly Hu. Goddamn racist.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

And dont you think its significant that racists use a word that literally means black to label whatever the hell they want to hate on at the moment?

Not really, no. It's a racial slur at this point, which makes it closer to a random hate word than the word Negroe.

It's no different than using the f word "creatively"
---

Lopen posted...

It's no different than using the f word "creatively"

Correct, but uh, not for the reasons you think!
---

Lopen posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I really fail to see how the academic use of white is doing harm to the colloquial use of white.

You don't see how there's harm when people who have been using it colloquially for years upon years before entering academia now have it rebranded to basically mean "the enemy" (because let's face it, not many people identify as the ruling class, even if they totally are)

You don't see how that could possibly have negative repercussions in how they digest the material?

Its not rebranding though. Its refining the definition of what people mean when they say it colloquially.

Look at the people who want to stand up for white pride and white rights. They ARE the enemy. What they mean by white is entirely based on skin color. It means nothing, except pride for not being black (or another dark race.)
---

Kenri posted...

Correct, but uh, not for the reasons you think!

This is the part where you put your field of study to use and explain for a plebeian like me what the reasons actually are.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Its refining the definition of what people mean when they say it colloquially.

While we're on definitions, I'd suggest you look into the definition of "refine" because what you're describing is not refining-- unless of course sociology "refined" the definition of what that word means too.
---

Lopen posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

And dont you think its significant that racists use a word that literally means black to label whatever the hell they want to hate on at the moment?

Not really, no. It's a racial slur at this point, which makes it closer to a random hate word than the word Negroe.

Thats a really myopic viewpoint. If your argument is that people just use hurtful words with no regard for their etymology, then I really dont think you have been around much deep racism
---

Lopen posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Its refining the definition of what people mean when they say it colloquially.

While we're on definitions, I'd suggest you look into the definition of "refine" because what you're describing is not refining-- unless of course sociology "refined" the definition of what that word means too.

improve (something) by making small changes, in particular make (an idea, theory, or method) more subtle and accurate.

Seems to mean what I thought it meant
---

Okay, maybe the problem is you don't know what the words small, or subtle, mean.
---

Lopen posted...

This is the part where you put your field of study to use and explain for a plebeian like me what the reasons actually are.

Well, like you said, it's largely the same thing. Straight and gay (or homosexual, or f**, or whatever) are just terms that denote acceptable and unacceptable behavior with regard to sex, gender, etc. Just like white and black, they don't have set meanings.

The LGBT community has reclaimed a lot of the terms but that's still what the original purpose was.
---

Lopen posted...

Okay, maybe the problem is you don't know what the words small, or subtle, mean.

I feel like the definition of white that youve been advocating isnt really that far off from the academic version of it! You just want to defend the use of it as a very contemporary surface level thing, instead of digging deeper as to the evolving use of it over time.

And then claiming that trying to help people better understand the root of racial identities is harmful because people will resent it
---

Oh.

I meant fuck not f**. Sorry. I mean, that's also a good example though.

But yeah basically it all boils down to what the mental association is when you think of a word, and which one brings hate to your mind strongest. For a normal non-racist person that word might be fuck or whatever and then for a racist it might be n*****. I don't think it's necessarily that the racist thinks black people and Native Americans are the same-- to me that feels like oversimplifying. But they're both things the dude hates, and n***** jumps to mind first.

Like if we'd lived in a culture where Chinese people were more a more prominent for racists to hate on, you'd probably be getting more slurs for other that were derivative from anti-Chinese slurs instead.
---

Lopen posted...

I meant fuck not f**. Sorry. I mean, that's also a good example though.

Oh shit, my bad lmao.
---

Lopen posted...

But yeah basically it all boils down to what the mental association is when you think of a word

And heres the whole crux of the disagreement

You see the use of language as very personal

Academics are examining how and why that word exists for the person to draw it out of mind and apply it.

Theres a reason WHY that word is in his or her arsenal, and its not just because its socially naughty.
---

Or maybe it was just a Heated Gaming Moment (tm)
---

So... Tom Bombadil and Ulti X said I should come in here and get a full report on how great President Trump is doing so far.
---

You want the other one

This is just brick walls running into each other right now
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Academics are examining how and why that word exists for the person to draw it out of mind and apply it.

Theres a reason WHY that word is in his or her arsenal, and its not just because its socially naughty.

We talking about the f word or the n word or both here

Because I don't think you can really discard the premise that it's just arbitrarily choosing a hate word to rally to without studying non-racially charged words as well-- particularly when you can see the f word used by non-racists in the same contexts the n word is used with racists.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You want the other one

This is just brick walls running into each other right now

This is way more interesting to read though!

I kind of feel like the two sides are debating two different things though.

Augh both sentences ending in the same word.
---

We might be. I'm more concerned with the mindset of people who take Sociology classes being warped towards racism against (colloquial) white people by repurposing of words moreso than saying the colloquial definition is "right" or anything like that, which I think may have been lost in this argument.

And is definitely way off what my original point was to boot. So who can really follow anything. It's an interesting discussion even if I don't quite get what my endgame is here.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

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

People with white skin. Are you seriously unable to grasp common sense at all?
---

Corrik posted...

People with white skin.

100% white? michael jackson is pretty close to that, i guess.
---

Lopen posted...

We might be. I'm more concerned with the mindset of people who take Sociology classes being warped towards racism against (colloquial) white people by repurposing of words moreso than saying the colloquial definition is "right" or anything like that, which I think may have been lost in this argument.

Even if they are I think more people taking sociology classes will result in a net decrease of racism.
---

Like, you guys wonder why zomg we have all this academic research supporting so and so reason and people don't believe it or whatever... While at the same time are arguing complete absolute nonsense academically that would never ever pass the common sense eye test ever.

When you argue only whites can be racist, that if a black person has power they become white, and so on... You have already raised the crazy flag and no one is listening to shit you say after that. We get it, you want to feel smart and try passing off some bullshit to make your insane opinions seem like they are "intellectual" and not able to be understood by the dumb masses. But, guess what... Your points are just stupid and lack common sense.

You are like the engineers who make theoretical formulations of how something works and the regular worker repeatedly says it will not work, but they think they know more because they have some paper that supposedly says they are smart... Then they try it, and it fails horribly.
---

Kyle Bowen posted...

So... Tom Bombadil and Ulti X said I should come in here and get a full report on how great President Trump is doing so far.

Wtf its Kyle Bowen

Trump report: Literally hilariously unbelievably bad.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

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

People with white skin. Are you seriously unable to grasp common sense at all?

No one actually has literally white skin
---

Corrik posted...

You are like the engineers who make theoretical formulations of how something works and the regular worker repeatedly says it will not work, but they think they know more because they have some paper that supposedly says they are smart... Then they try it, and it fails horribly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ahtp0sjA5U
---