That’s idiotic. When I say, “personal use,” I’m not saying anything pervy; I have no opinion on whether he’s doing anything pervy with the picture. But whenever I take a picture of something, if it comes out well, I plan on doing something with the picture: uploading it to Facebook, printing it out for a frame at work, sending it to a contractor to show the damages to my house, putting it on Craigslist to entice people to buy my junky old car, whatever. THOSE ARE PERSONAL USES.
It’s not a bad thing to take a picture of someone for personal use. I do it all the time (usually of my family–I’m one of those annoying dads who thinks Facebook needs more pictures of cute kids). First, doing that is absolutely nothing like a security camera’s picture-taking. Second, if I did it without getting permission first, I’d be an asshole.
I agree it was a fantastic post, and I hope everyone in this thread reads it instead of just skimming past it. The line about white privilege is especially poignant. And I agree that if someone, black or white, commits an act of violence or anger, it does not make them a savage. An act can be savage, of course… but it’s pejorative and dismissive to call someone a savage because of an action. Serves no purpose to call a black guy who rapes or murders someone a savage, even though the act itself was savage. Because as the poster pointed out, in America today, in the minds of many folks, black people have to be 120% perfect in order to go into “the good pile” (I love that wording), and any one poor decision, action, mistake, or what have you, puts them into the bad pile and they are no longer a “credit to their race.”
Agreed. Certainly I never worry about whether I’m making other white people proud of me, and to the extent that I want people to draw conclusions about white people based on me, I more see myself as trying in some tiny way to undo the damage to white people’s reputation caused by idiots like Cumia.
The other thing about the use of the word “savage” is its racist roots as a noun. Referring to someone as a savage really just means they’re not civilized, not cityfolk. Notwithstanding research showing a higher rate of homicide among hunter-gatherers, it’s still unfair to draw an equivalency between “not cityfolk” and “violent,” especially when referring to cityfolk (as Cumia in his tweets did). Other than Genghis Khan’s hordes, it’s difficult to think of a great historical atrocity committed by savages; they’re almost always perpetrated by cityfolk. Indeed, calling hunter-gatherer sorts “savages” is part of the dehumanizing language that cityfolk used to justify atrocities committed against those savages.
This ain’t irrelevant. Cumia uses the word “savage” in precisely this dehumanizing tradition, calling her a savage in one tweet and in the next talking about how he should have “put her down,” i.e., kill her as one would kill an animal.
In his defense, he’s not actually a murderer, but when you come down to it, that’s not the world’s most robust defense.
The other hilarious irony of the situation to me is that Cumia seems largely upset about the fact that he’s being judged for his perceived intentions. Gee, that must be horrible to endure.
That first link seems (to me, anyway) to pretty clearly show that Mr. Dibble’s first assertion (except for “living in the bush” rather than “fresh out of the bush”) was accurate.
Thanks MeanOldLady, drewtwo99, and Left Hand of Dorkness.
I’m not sure why I’m so interested in this case. As I said upthread, I’ve never listened to this show… it’s not my cup of tea. But I know Opie and Anthony by reputation, and I have to admit to being somewhat shocked that they’re still around. Regardless, I was bemused by the uproar that came on the Gawker site from fans of the show. People accused the author of the article of “trying to get O&A fired,” as if it was their constitutional right to be paid lots of money to talk on the radio.
We saw this a while back with Don Imus. Radio conglomerates generally don’t like being associated with racism. I would think the typical response would be, “Well, that guy’s a dumbass. He had a good gig and fucked it up by being stupidly, publicly racist.” Compare this to the Adam Richman thing a few weeks ago (wow, do you think he’s glad that this is the social media gaffe du jour?) - maybe he’s not as popular as Cumia, but I think the general thought was, “Dude, was that necessary?” Dropping the C-word on someone who disagrees with you on Instagram?
I can relate to coming to the realization that someone you like is a bigot. The soundtrack to my preteen years was either of Eddie Murphy’s albums, Comedian and Raw. I could (and probably still can) recite whole sections of those performances. As I got older and educated, I realized that there was a lot of homophobia and misogyny in those performances. And of course, I had to confront the fact that Eddie Murphy himself likely held these views personally. Does that make him a horrible human being incapable of learning or growing? Of course not. But those tapes are Exhibit A in his life as a homophobe and sexist.
Maybe he’s grown up and learned more. I suspect he has, but I don’t know for sure. I know he doesn’t do this kind of comedy anymore; perhaps that’s why? But I know if I want to commit to the work of being anti-homophobic and anti-sexist, it starts by calling out those who exhibit those behaviors, even if I like them.
It seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Dibble is accurate when he says that Shodan ‘sees nothing wrong with saying the majority of the population in Africa’s most developed country are “fresh out of the bush”’, except it was “living in the bush” rather than “fresh out of the bush”.
“Most of its populace” = “majority of the population”; “no experience with democracy” = “living in the bush” (except one is politically correct and one is not, according to Shodan). Perhaps you’d care to explain how I’ve got it wrong.
Yup. I read every one of your posts in that thread, and there’s nothing in there in which you distinguish significantly between the two statements, except to call one of them “politically correct.” Absent further explanation from you, sure looks as though you think both statements are acceptable. Here’s hoping you’ll give me the power over you to say that’s a flat-out racist thing to think.
Right, because they can never find any fuckwits to replace them, can they? Your happiness is unwarranted. The fuckwit is dead, long live the fuckwit! As long as there are enough assholes out there who want to listen to them (and there are, in their millions) fuckwits, unfortunately, will abound on the airwaves.
You don’t even understand the nobility of those who stand up for them. When they came for the racists… they put them into positions of authority and let them kill people.
I agree with Hippy Hollow’s excellent post (177) about white people no having to worry about taking down their own race with a single act.
Anybody remember that Richard Sherman interview? [The NFL player who lost his temper when being interviewed by a white lady?] I remember words like “Thug” and “Savage” being thrown around quite liberally by so called “non-racist”.
The “member of {group} is a representative of {group} as a whole” is depressingly common, and *even people who would never think or say overtly ist things can/will easily slip into this mentality without realizing it.
But most relevant to this thread is treating one black person’s actions/words/beliefs as a result of (and representative of) “the black community”. I’ve really noticed this over the past few years when someone becomes a mass murderer/rampage killer/spree killer. If the person is white, I see/hear/read discussions (in the media and by everyday schmoes like you and me) about possible mental illness or perhaps extreme abuse in their childhood. But if the person is black/hispanic/asian/muslim/whatever, the speculation turns to “their culture” or “their religion”.
White spree killer: he probably is mentally ill*.
Black(or other minority) spree killer: emblematic of “troubling” aspects of their community; aspects which, of course, are completely universal across all members of said community.
[sub]Which isn’t to say that everyone who posits this thinks that they shouldn’t be punished or held accountable, I want to stress.[/sub]