Well, nobody’s ever accused Starving Artist of making sense.
That’s because no one here on the smartest message board on the internet ever seems able to comprehend what I’ve actually said.
For example:
Guinastasia’s version of Starving Artist’s position:
Starving Artist’s actual position:
If America’s white liberals were more interested in achieving harmony between the races instead of looking for excuses to vent their self-righteous, punitive rage every time someone reveals a racist inclination, they would focus more on coming up with ways to increase understanding and empathy between the races rather than engaging in behavior which accomplishes nothing but to drive racism underground and perhaps keeps it flourishing even longer.
I’ve said it before here and I’ll say it again. Racism is never going to end in this country unless the two sides come together to form one single group of human beings. And that is never going to happen as long as the two sides are engaging in behavior that sets them apart. It may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to get into high dudgeon and rant and rave over the use of a single word and act like anyone with a racist thought in his head is worse than the worst child rapist or murderer, but again, all you do is drive that racism underground. You don’t increase understanding between the races, and you don’t make the subjects of your ire any less racist. In fact, you probably only make them dig in and become even worse. So what have you accomplished but to puff up your chests and congratulate yourselves for doing your bit to end racism even though it does no such thing?
The reason for mentioning MLK’s approach was to show that speaking out against racism in a dignified, articulate way was an effective way of changing attitudes about black people and gaining support for the civil rights movement. But that positive change pretty much ground to a halt once America’s white liberals decided to come out in force and start doing their bit to fight racism, and rather than increasing understanding and acceptance between the two races, has served in my opinion only to drive them further apart. How are white racists supposed to become less racist because you piss them off and cause them to entrench themselves in racism even further? And how are blacks supposed to think that things have gotten better when it’s obvious to everyone that all you’ve managed to do is drive racism underground? It’s no wonder black people don’t trust us today, when you’ve created an environment where they don’t know if the white guy being pleasant to them at work or on the street really feels that way or if he goes home and makes racist comments about them behind their backs.
In short, if you really want to fight racism you need to exercise a little discipline and rein in your self-righteous hostility and start working to educate people as to why racist attitudes are a bad thing instead of resorting to calling them assholes, demanding their jobs and congratulating yourselves for a job well done, because the truth is that job hasn’t been well done at all. MLK didn’t act like you do and he had a hell of a lot better reason. You’d be well served to follow his example.
Just an FYI, the name is originally derived from coal miners in West Virginia, who wore red kerchiefs around their necks. It doesn’t change your point. Just sharing something I found interesting.
It’s 2011. I think everyone has heard the message that racism is bad. The racists that remain aren’t going to be receptive to well-reasoned education.
So let’s call them what they are: assholes. And make their life difficult. It’s fair because they’re trying to make other people’s lives difficult.
Even if they don’t learn anything and continue to be a racist, they’ll still serve as a example. Maybe some other potential racist will see this racist being ostracized by society and decide to keep his racism to himself.
And it shows the people who are the targets of racism that the rest of us aren’t quietly supporting the racist and secretly agree with what he’s saying and doing. That black people are not on their own against all white people and that it’s the racists who are the real minority.
Martin Luther King, Jr. died in the middle of a boycott in Memphis. And Rosa Parks sparked a bus boycott in Montgomery that changed bus riding altogether. Starvin’ Darlin’, you have forgotten how important boycotts were in those days. They are a traditional means of nonviolent protest.
You can’t always go directly to the source of a problem – in this case, the woman or man who owns the truck. So it does make sense to quietly and politely tell the owner of the restaurant that if the owner of that truck is her or his employee, you won’t be doing business there because of the hate speech that is on the bumper sticker. Add that you will be happy to return when the employee, the truck, or the bumper sticker is removed. That seems very fair to me. It leaves the employer with options and it sends a message to the truck owner that maybe that sticker isn’t so funny or cool.
Boycotting is almost always an indirect means to an end, isn’t it?
Where I come from, you can’t fire anyone for things that are not specifically related to their job performance.
If, and only if, it affects their job can you dismiss them.
What that would mean in a case like this, is that if the racist wanker started getting into fights at work, you could fire him (but you would still have to be careful that it wasn’t vigilantes causing troubles)
But for simply holding views that society doesn’t like - then leave him the hell alone.
And I do think it’s wrong to to pressure the cafe this way - unless or until you can show that the owner is a racist fucktard also, or that the cafe is run specifically as some sort of support network for racists.
It does seem very “unamerican” to punish the organisation for the private actions of the employee.
The other boycotts mentioned here are different in at least one regard -
Blacks couldn’t sit on busses, hence, busses were punished by the boycott - isn’t that a pretty direct cause and effect?
Where is the cause and effect of punishing the cafe? Unless you are saying that the having the bumper sticker on the truck was a precondition for employment? In which case, boycott away.
What you say.
What we hear:
Racism doesn’t exist. If it exists, it’s because liberals keep pointing out the differences between whites and blacks. If they’d just stop, racists would stop being able to tell the difference between whites and blacks and everyone would be treated the same.
Intolerance should not be tolerated. Haters should be hated, even if that means the haters get to call the respondents haters.
I think this is over the top. I understand the disgust at proudly displayed racism and ignorance but making the effort to punish the individual for daring to express it , and being willing to harm the innocent people who might be affected by a boycott, is IMO returning hate and ignorance with hate and ignorance.
If he’s expressing his racism at work in the restaurant that’s one thing, but to someone hold his employer responsible for the non work related jerkiness of an employee, strikes me as excessive.
The whole, nobody should be allowed to express anything that ugly is just a little to self righteous for me.
That’s why I try to impregnate as many woman of other races as I possibly can. I’m convinced that racism cannot sustain itself when most of the population become mutts.
I’m Caucasian, Irish, Native American mix. Any ladies out there interested in stamping out racism once and for all. Let me know.
I have taken the liberty of creating an OK!Cupid profile for you with this as the theme.
** crosses legs tightly, glares warily at cosmosdan **
[QUOTE=TFD]
I’ve never heard of an aboriginal American , Asian or black redneck, have you ?
You have to be white to qualify.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, lots. Well, not aboriginal.
No, the term as applied to farmers predates its use by coal miners.
Christ, don’t you assholes have anything better to do on the weekends? Three pages of this shit I had to catch up on.
Skinhead tends to equal racist for a lot of people, but the movement wasn’t racist when it started–it just got co-opted by racists, because it was strongly identified with the British working class (which does unfortunately tend to be pretty racist, especially a few decades ago). These were the non-racist kind of skinheads. Most of them didn’t speak much English, if any, so they didn’t understand the lyrics–they just liked the music. Skanking is a type of dance you do to punk, especially hardcore punk.
I don’t have a problem with you getting up in a racist’s face about being racist. If you want to ask the guy to explain what the hell he means by the bumper sticker, and how he thinks that’s remotely okay, go for it. But to track down his employer and try to get him fired? That is where I draw the fucking line, because holding an opinion that you’re able to separate from the rest of your life shouldn’t be grounds to excommunicate you from society.
This racist asshole is entitled to express his racist opinion, and we’re entitled to call him out on it. I just draw the line at moving beyond words into actions.
My ethics say that we have to tolerate intolerance–at least, in the sense that we have to allow people the freedom to express even completely wrong, misguided, disgusting opinions (so long as those words aren’t designed to bring about direct harm to others). Having freedom means that some people are going to use that freedom to say and believe things that you don’t agree with. That’s just the high price of admission. However, that same freedom means that you can also express to them that you think they’re a fucking douchebag for holding said opinion.
Again, the line that I think has been crossed here is that they’re not *telling *the racist douchebag that he’s a racist douchebag, but rather *trying to get him fired *for a bumpersticker, i.e., for expressing an opinion (however disgusting) outside of work.
Well said.
False equivalence. A racist harassing someone–taking an action–is different from a racist having an opinion. Would you have punched someone just for wearing a button or a patch?
IMO, there’s a difference between “perfectly legal” and “perfectly fine.” Call me crazy, but I don’t define my ethics by the current state of the law. And even though, yes, it may be *legal *to fire the man over the bumpersticker, I still believe it’s unAmerican, because the ideal of America is that people can freely exchange words, even when others find those words distasteful, in their private lives.
I don’t think you have to respect his opinion. I do think you have to respect his *right to remain employed *so long as his opinion doesn’t interfere with his ability to do the job.
Do you think that someone who thinks the earth is flat should be fired from their job?
Uh, no, that’s not apparently racist. That’s definitely racist. You used a racial slur and essentially implied that there was something inherent to their genetics that made them beat up the other woman.
No, it hasn’t lost its racist connotations. You’ve just become comfortable with casual racism. Kind of like kids who use “gay” as a synonym for “lame” and then try to defend it by saying it doesn’t really mean anything.
So your standard for what kind of speech we should and shouldn’t allow is defined by whether or not people get their feelings hurt? Thank fucking god you’re not in charge of my country.
Leaving aside whether or not “redneck” is a racial slur against white people, the reason that slurs against whites (if they even exist) are less of a deal is that the country didn’t treat white people as inhuman property for a couple hundred years, then “free” them but institutionalize discrimination, then finally sort of begin to start evening things out, but mostly just stand up at the platform you scrambled up other people’s backs to get to, then refuse to help them up onto it, while loudly decrying how lazy they are for not making their way up on their own.
You’re changing the game. The equivalent response is to address to the racist why his attitudes are inappropriate, not to try to get him fired.
That’s because you’re fucking retarded. There is no way that “don’t re-elect the nigger” isn’t racist.
Please don’t try to take my side, you racist shitcock.
If you’re not afraid of fundamentalist Christians in the U.S., you’re not paying attention.
You said it, not me.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This was a later appropriation of the term in the early 20th century.
The problem is that the end here is that “people shouldn’t be able to express, on their own time, opinions which I find objectionable.” And I find that disgusting and unAmerican.
Guy treats white customers differently from everyone else? Fire him. Guy says racist things at work, to coworkers or customers, or in their hearing? Fire him. Guy wears a racist sticker or patch on his work uniform, or wears a racist shirt at work? Fire him. But on his fucking truck? It’s not like the guy can keep two vehicles, one to drive to work and one to use around town.
He’s entitled to his racist opinion, and we’re entitled to tell him that his racist opinion is digusting, but I think that trying to get him fired for expressing that opinion outside of work is unethical and unAmerican.
Anyone else amused that **cosmos **has Caucasian and Irish as two different categories?
TL;DR: What people here don’t seem to understand is that while they understand that firing someone for having a racist bumpersticker and firing someone for having a gay pride bumpersticker aren’t the same thing, it appears the same way to the person who would fire someone for having a gay pride bumpersticker.
Many of those who are still homophobic genuinely believe that same-sex relationships are a threat to our society, and that having any reaction to such other than roundly condemning them will cause male-female relationships to crumble. From their own completely fucked-up, misguided, and probably closeted-homosexual perspectives, they are defending America just as much as you are. They are not going to see a difference between the two scenarios; all they are going to say is, “Well, if they can try to get this guy fired for hating Black people, then I’m going to try to get that guy fired for hating marriage.”
I’d kiss you if I weren’t married and you were handcuffed and couldn’t run away.
The answer is simple. Some things are right and some things are wrong.
There are differences that we have to accept. And there are differences that are unacceptable.
I would not fire somebody for believing the earth is flat or being a Dallas fan or being gay or voting for Michele Bachmann. I would fire somebody for being a racist or a child molester or a wife beater - I don’t have to respect these as different ways of life.
Maybe he’s part Azerbaijani.
You are missing a major distinction here.
Yes, fundamentalism is a scary thing. No doubt. And an OEC sticker will make me think things about the person who has the car. But there is nothing in the sticker itself that is designed to threaten a particular (historically discriminated against) community.
The use of the term nigger (or nig) on the sticker, or anywhere, is designed to inform a community they are inferior, and designed to create a climate of fear. An OCE sticker simply isn’t, even though those who believe in OCE often hold other views which are designed in such a way. The OCE sticker, in and of itself, is no more threatening than a “Jesus Loves You” sticker, a “I’ve been abducted by aliens” sticker, or a “Free Palestine” one.
Even if that were true (and I’m not certain it is) being white isn’t sufficient to qualify. No one has ever used the word “redneck” and by it meant “white people”.
It isn’t true, at all. “Redneck” is more synonymous with “country folk” and has been reclaimed for the most part, and is a name worn with pride. Seriously, there are tons of non-white “rednecks”; especially Hispanic and Black.