Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 328: Poll Dancing

(+) Yeah! (+)

I can cut Nanis a break on the blackface thing since hes not American. I wouldnt necessarily expect someone from outside the country to understand the historical weight of blackface
---

Nanis23 posted...

What
What even was the context?

Hes mad about your grammar.

An actor not a actor
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I can cut Nanis a break on the blackface thing since hes not American. I wouldnt necessarily expect someone from outside the country to understand the historical weight of blackface

I mean as you can see I did as well, originally.

Then he just kept pushing so fuck it.

---

And this is fine (or not fine, if you want to rebel against how the world works currently and feel like it should be changed)

Ding ding ding.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

You guys sure spent a long time arguing with Nanis when they came out swinging with "nothing wrong with blackface".

This actually continued in Discord
Smarter, and more civilised people than you, pointed me out that "blackface" is forbidden because of the history of the term
They agreed that, if that bad history didn't happen, then "blackfacing" wouldn't have been this bad as it is today
I had to agree - because as I said - context is important
I only wish we would leave the bad history behind. Because people used bad things in the past, used "blackface" to insult black people, is using it for positive purpose like cosplay also not allowed? if the history is so tainted and so painful, then...it shouldn't be allowed
But I wish in the future it will change

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Hes mad about your grammar.

An actor not a actor

My bad
Thanks for correcting me
I will try to improve this

---

Robert Downey Jr was amazing in blackface in a movie so I mean, I guess I have to agree about context <_<

---

Nanis23 posted...

Smarter, and more civilised people than you

They're in Discord so that's a big no.

---

Nanis23 posted...

This actually continued in Discord
Smarter, and more civilised people than you, pointed me out that "blackface" is forbidden because of the history of the term
They agreed that, if that bad history didn't happen, then "blackfacing" wouldn't have been this bad as it is today
I had to agree - because as I said - context is important
I only wish we would leave the bad history behind. Because people used bad things in the past, used "blackface" to insult black people, is using it for positive purpose like cosplay also not allowed? if the history is so tainted and so painful, then...it shouldn't be allowed
But I wish in the future it will change

People refuse to consider context because it is more important to virtue signal.

I mean, you live in a country that is likely full of people who in their ancestry have been interned, enslaved, and etc.

So, you probably more than most know how ridiculous it is to think you deserve special treatment based on your possible ancestry.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Robert Downey Jr was amazing in blackface in a movie so I mean, I guess I have to agree about context <_<

This was literally a huge joke about how fucked up blackface is!

---

Corrik7 posted...

So, you probably more than most know how ridiculous it is to think you deserve special treatment based on your possible past.

The entire existence of his country was giving his people special treatment because of their past!
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The entire existence of his country was giving his people special treatment because of their past!

Israel was created after the Holocaust. That is not something that happened prior to anyone currently living.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

This was literally a huge joke about how fucked up blackface is!

Which is why it worked and (imo) was not done in an offensive way.

It's also why I didn't think the dark elf "blackface" in the D&D episode of community was offensive, but they had characters in the show acknowledging the negativity of it.

Like when there is an episode of a sit com that demonstrates how terrible drunk driving is and downright demonizes it, I wouldn't expect there to be a backlash from people saying "That show HAD drunk driving it it, therefor they are supporting the existence of drunk driving".

But outside of those two cases (Tropic Thunder and the D&D Community episode) I am hard pressed to think of any other examples of non offensive blackface usage.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Israel was created after the Holocaust. That is not something that happened prior to anyone currently living.

So your argument against reparations is that no one alive was a slave owner
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Which is why it worked and (imo) was not done in an offensive way.

It's also why I didn't think the dark elf "blackface" in the D&D episode of community was offensive, but they had characters in the show acknowledging the negativity of it.

Like when there is an episode of a sit com that demonstrates how terrible drunk driving is and downright demonizes it, I wouldn't expect there to be a backlash from people saying "That show HAD drunk driving it it, therefor they are supporting the existence of drunk driving".

But outside of those two cases (Tropic Thunder and the D&D Community episode) I am hard pressed to think of any other examples of non offensive blackface usage.

Cosplay. Painting faces for sporting events to school colors. Children idolizing black heroes. I mean, there is countless examples.

Context matters.

It is like calling that girl a racist because she was singing the rappers song on stage with him after she paid to be there to support him and he invited her on stage to sing and a racist slur was I. The song.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Cosplay. Painting faces for sporting events to school colors. Children idolizing black heroes. I mean, there is countless examples.

I wouldnt expect the children to know better, but I would expect the parents to
---

Jakyl25 posted...

So your argument against reparations is that no one alive was a slave owner

Every person currently alive that was a slave they wish to give reparations to is a-ok to me. I mean, probably every last human in life has had an ancestor enslaved. Let's be honest. It is pandering to the African-American vote. Nothing more.

Republicans stance is treat everyone equally.

Democrats stance is pander to minorities and act like they are special and deserve more.

These are the non-extremist stances of these parties.

It is like acting like all rules and stuff should change for everyone and adversely affect women's athletics because .6% of the population is Transgender. Like, congrats, you are transgender. The rules apply to you all the same and you are not special compared to anyone else.

That's the problem with the democrat party and what they don't get. They pander instead of actually treating people equal. They say I am going to pick an African American woman as Vice President no matter what. Because they think this pandering helps their representation, instead of realizing it lessens this because it means they could only make that choice when qualifying the decision to preclude the other best options. It is degrading once you get past the woohoo they are pandering to me aspect.

---

Nanis23 posted...

This actually continued in Discord
Smarter, and more civilised people than you, pointed me out that "blackface" is forbidden because of the history of the term
They agreed that, if that bad history didn't happen, then "blackfacing" wouldn't have been this bad as it is today
I had to agree - because as I said - context is important
I only wish we would leave the bad history behind. Because people used bad things in the past, used "blackface" to insult black people, is using it for positive purpose like cosplay also not allowed? if the history is so tainted and so painful, then...it shouldn't be allowed
But I wish in the future it will change

you keep on running into this topic swinging over issues you don't know the context of. please stop

---

Do you think that republicans (and democrats) actually treat everyone equally?

---

I would rather have pandering vs making their lives worse with almost every policy action since forever (when accounting for the southern switch)

---

Minorities DO deserve more, Corrik. You know why? Because at this point in time, they are NOT equal to white people. Just saying "Okay, everyone is equal now under the law!" does not create equality.

---

neonreaper posted...

Do you think that republicans (and democrats) actually treat everyone equally?

I stated the philosophy not the actions.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I mean, probably every last human in life has had an ancestor enslaved.

The issue is that every black person in America still feels the effects of their ancestors slavery. Thats the entire point of reparations. You act like the past and the present arent connected.
---

Inviso posted...

Minorities DO deserve more, Corrik. You know why? Because at this point in time, they are NOT equal to white people. Just saying "Okay, everyone is equal now under the law!" does not create equality.

No. They deserve the same.

---

Corrik7 posted...

No. They deserve the same.

Exactly. That's what I just said. They deserve more so that they are on the same level as white people, who are currently the ones receiving more.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

The issue is that every black person in America still feels the effects of their ancestors slavery. Thats the entire point of reparations. You act like the past and the present arent connected.

Everyone can feel the effects of their families pasts. You don't get treated special for it.

Trust me. I wish my family could have been rich too, bud.

---

Inviso posted...

Exactly. That's what I just said. They deserve more so that they are on the same level as white people, who are currently the ones receiving more.

Let me explain how things work. Getting more than someone is not getting the same as someone.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Let me explain how things work. Getting more than someone is not getting the same as someone.

Right. So you agree that white people shouldn't currently get more than minorities, and therefore minorities should be raised up to an equal level with their white counterparts.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Everyone can feel the effects of their families pasts. You don't get treated special for it.

Trust me. I wish my family could have been rich too, bud.

And you deserve to have all your basic needs met by the government just like everyone else

Reparations would be specifically targeting the historical slight inflicted on black people, but there can be other social injustice reparations too! Its not LIMITED to reparations for slavery
---

It's simple.

Right now Whites get 70 and minorities get 30

So inviso is saying no that's not fair, you both need 50

easy

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

It's simple.

Right now Whites get 70 and minorities get 30

So inviso is saying no that's not fair, you both need 50

easy

Incorrect

The right idea is they both get 100

Its not a zero sum game
---

okay SURE I was speaking of equality and %s but fine make it more specific.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

okay SURE I was speaking of equality and %s but fine make it more specific.

Well the way you laid it out was that 20 needs to be taken from whites to give to minorities, when thats the exact rhetoric that causes people like Corrik to dig their heels in.

We need to work on framing the argument better so that no one feels like they would be losing something they cant afford to lift everyone up
---

I am not usually one to scold people for arguing with Corrik and often do myself but the systemic racism argument is the actual worst one to have and everyone WILL feel a lot better not rehashing it

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well the way you laid it out was that 20 needs to be taken from whites to give to minorities, when thats the exact rhetoric that causes people like Corrik to dig their heels in.

We need to work on framing the argument better so that no one feels like they would be losing something they cant afford to lift everyone up

I got what you meant, Chris, but yeah, I have to agree with Jakyl on the phrasing, just because it makes it easy for standoffish people who are already against actual equality to claim "well they're just gonna make MY life worse to make THEIR lives better".

---

Reminder that there is not a fixed amount of wealth to be had. We invented wealth. We invented currency. We invented markets. And we use those ideas as weapons.
---

That doesnt mean we need to start Fight Club though
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well the way you laid it out was that 20 needs to be taken from whites to give to minorities, when thats the exact rhetoric that causes people like Corrik to dig their heels in.

We need to work on framing the argument better so that no one feels like they would be losing something they cant afford to lift everyone up

I was in a joking way saying your way was better ;o

---

Corrik7 posted...

Everyone can feel the effects of their families pasts. You don't get treated special for it.

Trust me. I wish my family could have been rich too, bud.

If your grandpa was the child of an actual slave, and because of that he raised your dad in poverty, and because of that your dad never got an education and raised YOU in poverty, do you really think thats the same situation as I wish my family was rich too, bud

---

https://twitter.com/robrousseau/status/1316015249275809792?s=21

Lmao, makes the original tweet and threats from the Libs even funnier. What a hopelessly shit system we have, and were supposed to be grateful the Dems arent Republicans. Incredible.

---

Going back to the discussion of movie casting, or hiring practices in general, historical context is important to note.

For 200 years, black people were a largely enslaved population in this country. And even after they were freed as a culture, they still faced a further hundred years of subservience prior to the civil rights act. Now, let's pretend for a moment that the civil rights act fixed all the problems with racism in our society and the people who fought against the civil rights act (and all the practices that still existed) just disappeared or calmly said "we've been beaten, we'll change our ways now". That still leaves hundreds of years in which white people were able to make tremendous gains while black people were not.

Imagine a company was founded in 1900 by a white businessman. That company likely wouldn't have employed many black workers, if any at all. The company grows and grows, but likely maintains the same hiring practices. Then the civil rights act happens. Equality is legally enshrined in our country. That company would still have all white executives (or an all white board or directors), and a predominantly white workforce. So even with the new equality between the races, imagine that this company has a job opening. A black man applies and a white man applies, both with relatively equal qualifications. The white man is more likely to get the job, not necessarily because of overt racism, but because of intangible qualities. Psychologically, people are more likely to relate to those similar to them, so if you look at a predominantly-white workforce, you then turn to the white applicant and think "this guy will fit in better with our current workplace culture." Plus, there's the added drawback for black applicants in this scenario is that they are less likely to have someone already within the company (be it a friend or family member) to vouch for them or refer them for the position.

This all compounds and furthers the disparity in employment at the company between black and white employees. The reason diversity quotas exist is because without them, it's possible that the "best" employee (as you say) for the job might be overlooked and outright snubbed, if he's not white.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/robrousseau/status/1316015249275809792?s=21

Lmao, makes the original tweet and threats from the Libs even funnier. What a hopelessly shit system we have, and were supposed to be grateful the Dems arent Republicans. Incredible.

Yes. This. The elected Democrats fucking suck.

---

Inviso posted...

Right. So you agree that white people shouldn't currently get more than minorities, and therefore minorities should be raised up to an equal level with their white counterparts.

Listen. I know this may be hard to understand so bear with me.

There are probably the same amount if not more poor white people in the world as African-Americans.

You will say but nuh uh look at average wealth yadda yadda. Yeah average. Median etc. There are more White people. And there are probably more poor white people. Maybe there is 5% wealthy white people and only 1% wealthy African-Americans, but down to numbers that is how it likely comes out.

There are probably rich African-Americans who have slave ancestors. There are probably poor white people that were past slave owners.

Your ancestors don't determine your wealth today nor how you are judged today.

What does matter is a economic disparity. An economic disparity that needs to be fixed across the board and spectrum. Not just for a special race. It's why I have repeatedly touted my idea of how to accomplish that. A UBI that every last person gets and an estate tax that only allows maximum of 100k passed on to each child in the family and nothing more. 100k should be the max for everyone starting out, and everyone should have a UBI. This would lessen the disparity until it averages out moreso across the spectrum for the most part.

The problem isn't African-Americans were once enslaved. The problem is that poor people have very little way to catch up to rich people across the spectrum.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lmao, makes the original tweet and threats from the Libs even funnier. What a hopelessly shit system we have, and were supposed to be grateful the Dems arent Republicans. Incredible.

I just want ONE person to ask her: "Please give one example of where you set aside your religious beliefs to rule in favor of the constitution."

---

Inviso posted...

Going back to the discussion of movie casting, or hiring practices in general, historical context is important to note.

For 200 years, black people were a largely enslaved population in this country. And even after they were freed as a culture, they still faced a further hundred years of subservience prior to the civil rights act. Now, let's pretend for a moment that the civil rights act fixed all the problems with racism in our society and the people who fought against the civil rights act (and all the practices that still existed) just disappeared or calmly said "we've been beaten, we'll change our ways now". That still leaves hundreds of years in which white people were able to make tremendous gains while black people were not.

Imagine a company was founded in 1900 by a white businessman. That company likely wouldn't have employed many black workers, if any at all. The company grows and grows, but likely maintains the same hiring practices. Then the civil rights act happens. Equality is legally enshrined in our country. That company would still have all white executives (or an all white board or directors), and a predominantly white workforce. So even with the new equality between the races, imagine that this company has a job opening. A black man applies and a white man applies, both with relatively equal qualifications. The white man is more likely to get the job, not necessarily because of overt racism, but because of intangible qualities. Psychologically, people are more likely to relate to those similar to them, so if you look at a predominantly-white workforce, you then turn to the white applicant and think "this guy will fit in better with our current workplace culture." Plus, there's the added drawback for black applicants in this scenario is that they are less likely to have someone already within the company (be it a friend or family member) to vouch for them or refer them for the position.

This all compounds and furthers the disparity in employment at the company between black and white employees. The reason diversity quotas exist is because without them, it's possible that the "best" employee (as you say) for the job might be overlooked and outright snubbed, if he's not white.

So, what do you suggest?
Affirmative action? (is this the correct term? I think this is the correct term)
In this case, sure, it help the minority, but it also hurt the "strong". Is this the right course of action? does the "strong" have a right to complain about this?
I don't think there is a easy answer for this. I can't picture a scenario where everyone wins and everyone are happy. Some will have to get hurt in favor of others.
I am just asking what would be the best course of action, in which nobody gets hurt?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

If your grandpa was the child of an actual slave, and because of that he raised your dad in poverty, and because of that your dad never got an education and raised YOU in poverty, do you really think thats the same situation as I wish my family was rich too, bud

Yep. Raising me in poverty vs raising someone else in poverty is raising someone in poverty.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

If your grandpa was the child of an actual slave, and because of that he raised your dad in poverty, and because of that your dad never got an education and raised YOU in poverty, do you really think thats the same situation as I wish my family was rich too, bud

It ignores the systemic racism in this country that was the Jim Crow era. White people had opportunities black people never had. If anything, reparations are nothing more than offering to blacks what was and is already offered to white people.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Your ancestors don't determine your wealth today nor how you are judged today.

I would encourage you to think outside your bubble if this is what you believe.

Generational wealth is a big thing. White people owned land and had greater opportunities in the US over many centuries. Having to start from $0 with no land when others have had the opportunity to start with more due to wealth from their parents and beyond matters a lot. Having to grow up in a neighborhood with other non-white people and that neighborhood being statistically more likely to be underfunded as a result also matters a lot.

Also the fact that you don't think ancestry plays a role in how people are judge is...something. Implicit bias is a thing and I know people who have used more white-sounding names just to have better luck in terms of securing apartments/interviews even though that shouldn't matter.

If it were a game of monopoly and players from group A got 200 turns before players from group B, it'd make sense to focus on those in group B. Sure there are players in group A who rolled a bunch of 1s, but at least they got a chance to roll.

I feel like you think society equalizes at a much faster rate than it actually does.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Listen. I know this may be hard to understand so bear with me.

There are probably the same amount if not more poor white people in the world as African-Americans.

You will say but nuh uh look at average wealth yadda yadda. Yeah average. Median etc. There are more White people. And there are probably more poor white people. Maybe there is 5% wealthy white people and only 1% wealthy African-Americans, but down to numbers that is how it likely comes out.

There are probably rich African-Americans who have slave ancestors. There are probably poor white people that were past slave owners.

Your ancestors don't determine your wealth today nor how you are judged today.

What does matter is a economic disparity. An economic disparity that needs to be fixed across the board and spectrum. Not just for a special race. It's why I have repeatedly touted my idea of how to accomplish that. A UBI that every last person gets and an estate tax that only allows maximum of 100k passed on to each child in the family and nothing more. 100k should be the max for everyone starting out, and everyone should have a UBI. This would lessen the disparity until it averages out moreso across the spectrum for the most part.

The problem isn't African-Americans were once enslaved. The problem is that poor people have very little way to catch up to rich people across the spectrum.

How does this address institutional and systemic racism though? Like, historically, these economic policies that help "the poor" help the poor white population, because that population is ONLY being held back by the fact that they lack the financial means. But those same economic policies don't translate to benefiting black people, because the systems that exist to hold THEM back are still in effect. Don't get me wrong: policies that benefit the poor, like UBI and changes to the estate tax, are objectively a good thing. But they tend to be distractions from ever discussing racial inequality.

Keep in mind, as recently as the 1940s, we had the G.I. bill which ensured that soldiers returning home from overseas would have affordable mortgage rates (allowing them to invest equity into homeownership) and affordable college tuition. It was a means of boosting the economic status of poorer Americans who served their country in wartime. However, despite the fact that the G.I. bill applied to veterans across the board, existing discriminatory practices meant that black Americans could not take advantage of the benefits of the bill to the same degree that white Americans could. Thus poor white people in the 1940s were able to elevate themselves out of poverty via homeownership and education, while black Americans (still pre-Civil Rights era) remained impoverished and had to continue fighting just to gain NOMINAL equality. That's what happens when we try to broadly implement policies that benefit "the poor". They don't fix the problems cause by systemic racism.

---

The poor need help period. Not just the special class of poor.

---