There are many people who don’t want to appear racist because they aren’t, but there are also many people who are hypersensitive to anything that might possibly sort of look like it might be racist. Or they just play the racist card because it works.
So, the person who was just trying to create an ad that looked like it was shot in China is more a self-absorbed wanter with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement than the person that immediate jumps to the conclusion that the ad must be about them AND it must be racist?
Sure. But just because some people are hypersensitive about racism doesn’t mean that the rest of us get to say “well screw it, I won’t bother trying to avoid racist-seeming behavior at all, then”. Just because some unreasonable people are never satisfied with anything doesn’t mean we don’t still have an obligation to try to make reasonable people satisfied.
If you don’t personally think that the ad in question was exploiting racist stereotypes, you’re certainly within your rights to hold that opinion. It’s only if you insisted that anybody who has a different opinion from yours on that matter must be hypersensitively “jumping to conclusions” about it that you would reveal yourself to be a self-absorbed wanker.
Just like I would be a self-absorbed wanker if I insisted that anybody who didn’t detect racism in something I personally found racist must actually be a racist themselves.
We can disagree about how racist something appears to be without necessarily being dicks about it. It’s when we start dismissing other people’s reactions and not caring about anybody’s sensitivities but our own that we’re being dicks.
The proper approach to racism is indeed to point and say “That statement is racist”. (Not necessarily to point and say “That person is a racist”. And not necessarily to shout at the top of one’s lungs, either. But I haven’t really noticed any shouting here.)
Okay then, so you in fact apparently agree with me (and elucidator) that we should strive in good faith to avoid the appearance of racism.
The only thing you actually disagree with me on is whether some elements of the ad in question really do give an appearance of racism.
Fine. As I indicated to curlcoat above, that’s to some extent a matter of individual perception, and I have no problem with agreeing to disagree about that.
Context matters. Swastika on a German flag = racist. Swastika on Hindu temple = not racist.
Similarly, South Asian people talking in their native accent about long distance phone calls = almost certainly not racist. South Asian people talking in a contrived accent to around anger, fear, or other negative feelings in order to exploit demeaning stereotypes for political advantage = probably racist.
Geez, it’s like we have to explain the fact that prejudice exists.
Of course, I didn’t say any of that. What I am saying is that these days it appears that the definition of “reasonable people” seems to be “anyone who is insulted by something and claims racism”.
Really? Good lord, what a great example of what I just said! It’s OK for someone to leap to the conclusion that something is racist and freak out all over, but if someone else says “uh, it’s not racist”, that person must be a self-absorbed wanker? If anything, the person that assumes X must be a racist attack on them look much more self-absorbed. People like me aren’t the ones that are creating the drama, the demands for apologies and retractions. We see racism when it is there, but we don’t go looking for it.
Well, since I didn’t do any of that, obviously this isn’t directed at me. Actually, when I said I didn’t see racism in that ad, I was the one who was dismissed.
Many years ago, someone told me that I am racist because I cannot tell the differences between the various Asian races. I still don’t understand how that works, but it’s an example of how hyper-sensitive people can be, and how they can create an issue where none exists.
It would hardly be possible to come up with a more complete distortion and misunderstanding of what I said than what you just wrote.
What I said is that the self-absorbed wankers are the ones who refuse to admit that a reasonable person of good will could have a different opinion from them about how racist something is.
For example, if you say about something “uh, that’s not racist” and another person says “uh yeah, it is racist”, and you then say “you’re leaping to conclusions and freaking out all over!”, then you’re being a self-absorbed wanker with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
Likewise, if somebody else says “uh, that’s racist” and you say “uh no, it isn’t”, and they then say “you’re only saying that because you’re a racist too!”, then they’re being a a self-absorbed wanker with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
The non-wankers are the ones who can disagree and even argue about whether and why and how much something is racist, WITHOUT whining about what dicks their opponents must be for daring to disagree with them.
This sounds far more snide than I mean it to, but have you read the thread? The OP stated that “If this ad actually makes him poll better, the people of Michigan can go fuck themselves. They deserve him.” While certainly not caps lock internet yelling, it’s a good distance away from reasonable people disagreeing. That and the general tone of handling those who don’t see the racism has been at best pleasant condescension. Certainly not saying that there hasn’t been equal attitude on both sides. It’s just that there hasn’t exactly been a race to claim the high ground.
I suppose so. The issue I took with Elucidator’s post was that it appeared to suggest that intent mattered little. The mere hint of a shade of the appearance of racism is enough for condemnation with little to no thought involved, and that to do so is simply the decent thing to do. That just don’t sit right with me.
Correct. While I have several issues with the commercial, racism isn’t one of them. It looks like a mostly stupid but somewhat accurate depiction of China. Bikes. Rice paddies. English that is mildly accented. In my opinion, calling this racist would mean that the character played by Jackie Chan in…well honestly in every american movie he’s been in is racist. Possibly more so as his accent is far thicker.
The closest answer to how it (the ad in question) is racist and other similar depictions of races in pop culture are not is that the other depictions have “context.” I’d say that doesn’t apply as we are looking at a thirty second political commercial. Context and/or depth aren’t exactly the aim or to be even expected realistically.
Neither do I. Unfortunately, you seem to be the only one in the thread of that mind.
You don’t have to explain it to me … most everyone; most everwhere prejudges most everything. It becomes prejudice when your kind can use it to your advantage.
The independents have spoken. (Scroll down to page 6.) Stabenow’s lead was six or seven in the last poll prior to the Super Bowl ad; it immediately began to increase and is now at 20, entirely because independents have decided they don’t like him very much anymore.
Typical right-wing silliness in this thread, so hung up on the semantics of whether or not a thing is racist (and it ain’t racism unless there’s a lynchin’, am I right?) that they ignore the fact that most normal people just find it plain offensive and obnoxious, however they choose to label it. Is this really the hill you guys want to die on?
Nope. He’s was pointing out that China is getting a lot of our jobs and holds too much of our debt. Making that point by portraying someone from that country is not racism. You are aware that people from the country called China or Chinese, right? Should he have but a Norwegian in a landscape that was supposed to be China? Yeesh.
Then you might fire a synapse or two and realize that when making a point about CHINA one might use people from that country, who are—as you claim to know—CHINESE!
If France held our debt and was a place our jobs was going to, would you object to a pretty girl with a French accent talking to us while sitting outside a Parisian-type cafe?
By the way, Jello for Brains, why do you think the ad has backfired on Hoekstra? If it isn’t the obvious racism, do you think the people of Michigan watched the ad and said, “WTF, Hoekstra, we have to disagree with you on this ad: we LOVE it when our jobs are shipped to China! You have played the wrong card on outsourcing, and we will have none of it! We are now going to vote for Debbie Spenditnow!”
Of COURSE it is the racism in the ad that turned people off. You have to be stupid not to recognize the cause and effect here.
Christ, your lack of ability to string two rational thoughts together is starting to scrape the depths of ralph124c.
But they didn’t even do that! They got an American girl of Chinese extraction with no discernible accent and then, for no good reason, inserted some “pidgin” type errors!
Of course, to be fair, claiming the high ground isn’t exactly expected in the Pit.