I don’t think you actually understand who I was insulting in that post. Guin did.
And “Dribble”? So witty!
If you thought MrDibble was insulting you, then I think you read it wrong.
Yeah, it’s pedestrian. But when you give yourself a name like that, or Mr. Slithead or Cap’n Clockshucker or Really Not All That Bright, what the hell do you think is gonna happen?
How many people have to “perceive” (or pretend to perceive) something as racist for it to be an issue. A few? Just one? That sets the bar a little bit low, no? If it’s just one person can we tell them they are being oversensitive and reading things into images that aren’t there?
I agree with the “being a good neighbor” thing. I just disagree on who is being the bad neighbor. Should the people celebrating Chinese New Year change their thousands year old tradition and swap out the monkey for a honey badger or something?
And the context here couldn’t be clearer that this monkey is for Chinese New Year. Mostly the traditional garb and the fact that it says “Chinese Lunar New Year” under it should be the clues. This is as far from the racist monkey image as a monkey can possibly get without evolving into a human.
So far, to prove how enlightened you are, you have invoked the idea that black people can’t help themselves but to resort to violence, and poked some lighthearted fun at disabled babies. Maybe you aren’t helping your cause.
Let me chime in. Nobody said false accusations of rape are worse than real rape, etc. But they can still ruin someone’s life, can’t they? They should be taken seriously, shouldn’t they?
I think false accusations of racism are much more common than you seem to realize.
Neither.
I think they are very common and rarely addressed properly. I think the accused just walks away and stops interacting with black people as much. Few people want to get into a big fight over whether they are racist. Many are afraid that those who judge will follow your admonition to err on the side of presuming racism over false accusations.
I disagree. But there’s really no way to resolve that disagreement.
Yes, but look how far it went first. How many times do those things not go corrected? I don’t know. My point was to show how easy a false accusation can happen, to anyone, even you, for saying something that has absolutely no racist connotation whatsoever. It was out of thin air. Someone lost their job over it, even if cooler heads prevailed later because of all the publicity. Most people don’t get that publicity. It should at least make you think.
We probably disagree on a few things – I think it’s reasonable to believe that lots of people might have misunderstood the imagery as it was presented (on the first day of BHM), not just a few. There would be no need to change any traditions (or change the animal) – it could just be presented differently.
Of course – I’ve never said differently (though I interpreted Bone to be saying that false accusations of rape and murder are, indeed, as bad as rape and murder).
Right – we disagree here.
Sure, it makes me think – but I think casual racism is incredibly common, and when some folks see racism multiple times a day, they may overreact occasionally. I think that’s probably understandable – I would find it incredibly difficult to, say, criticize a Holocaust survivor who was offended by a swastika displayed across from a synagogue (even if it was for a Hindu cultural celebration), or a black person whose grandfather was lynched for being offended by (for example) a rope tied in a certain away on a tree across from their church, even if it was for some cultural display unrelated from lynching. In light of these kinds of things, I think sensitivity is very appropriate, and just being a good neighbor.
You didn’t answer the question though. Hypothetically, how many people have to “see” racism in order for it to be an issue. If one person says something is offensive, does that make it so?
I don’t know – but I’ll worry more if I think thousands or millions might perceive something negatively than if I only think or or two might.
There is no way to prove your anti-racist credentials, primarily because there is no such thing. It’s not a state of being. It’s not an identity. It’s not a credential you can assert. And if you find yourself in a discussion asserting something like this, then you should look at what you’re doing wrong, because you are doing something wrong. Perhaps, you’re conceiving of the problem wrong. Perhaps, you are actually doing or saying something racist, which is why you feel you need to assert some kind of credential.
Of course it does–for that person.
Obviously there’s nuance and context here. If the one person is my spouse, you’re damn skippy it becomes an issue. If the one person is someone I don’t know or don’t care about or don’t respect, then it’s not an issue.
(To throw in yet another flawed metaphor,) I might decide not to tell a joke that’s really fucking funny but that I know will offend some people. I might decide to tell it anyway and accept the offense. I might be wrong in either case–more might be offended, or more deeply, or fewer, less. But in the end, I have to decide if it’s worth it to me. It’s an “issue,” regardless, and something I really ought to be aware of in order to make informed decisions.
Are you seriously looking for a hard-and-fast rule? You know that doesn’t exist, right?
What a strange question. Of course it wouldn’t anger me or my neighbours, it’s only a t-shirt.
Pretty obviously, I’m looking for a rule of thumb*.
-
- Some people may object to this phrase based on possible origins in spousal abuse. Others may recognize that it is just a phrase that very, very few people are invoking origins of spousal abuse when they use it.
Natch. There is none. But you already know that, right?
Call a group of African-Americans monkeys, you will probably offend. It’s up to you whether to do it or not.
Put out a bunch of shirts with monkeys on them on the first day of Black History Month, you might offend. It’s up to you whether to do it or not.
Being told, even by one person, “I find that offensive,” or even “hey, I find that kinda tone-deaf” provides you more information. It’s up to you whether you choose to do it or not, but now you have more information.
Based on the person speaking up and whatever other considerations arose, the Kings chose their path. You might choose differently, but at least you will have done so *knowing *that you’re pissing someone off and accepting it as the cost of business.
Agreed. But that information that I got from this episode is that sometimes a very small group of people will pretend to find offense with things.
You have *decided *that people (who?) are pretending to be offended, and done so as near as I can tell without any evidence.
Is it too hard to accept that offense is subjective, even when you disagree? You don’t get to tell me how I feel, you only get to ignore me if you wish. You’re welcome to find my feelings, my opinions, my words, or my actions as silly as you wish. And sure, you may decide to think I’m faking them…but to decide that because you find them silly, or simply because you disagree, seems awfully arrogant.
Because if one person, or a very small number of people (as is the case here) find offense, then that offense is either not rationale or not present. Even the bastion of conservative thought, the Daily Show, had a piece about how dumb this is. A reasonable person looks at the Cleveland Indians mascot and finds it offensive. A reasonable person looks at this nonsense and finds it nonsense.
If someone tells me the number 12 is offensive, they are either wrong or lying.
“Reasonable” meaning “agrees with you?” Anyone who does not find the Indians mascot offensive is wrong, in your opinion. Doesn’t change the fact that they don’t find offense. You say you find it offensive, they say you’re making shit up–you’re not really offended–because it’s nonsense.
Ok. Why automatically assume the latter? I know you mean it as a silly extreme example, but let’s go with it–let’s say that person explains to you how the number 12 has been representative of a history of oppression for himself and his people. He provides justification and explanation for his offense. He’s happy to discuss the 350 years that “12” has been used as a dehumanizing slur, and that while it’s just a number and a perfectly useful one at that, in this particular context, on the anniversary of the Great Twelve Massacre, it’s really insensitive and offensive to be flaunting your 12 in his face.
Sure, he’s wrong. He might be completely divorced from reality. And his opinion is probably easily dismissed–there aren’t many anti-Twelvists out there.
But isn’t it reasonable to assume he’s actually for realsies offended, no matter how much an idiot you think him?