TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 166

Thread: Screen art and racism

  1. #26
    Vacation time!

  2. #27
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by bassoferrol View Post
    And now I realize thanks to a bunch of ignorant and idiots that Cristobal Colón was a racist and a slaver.
    Does Spain have a holiday in his honor? And did you really come to that realization just now?

  3. #28
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by bassoferrol View Post
    Everbody knows that yellow race has an IQ superior to white race and no problem.
    ...you're a racist.

  4. #29
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    He has being sarcastic there.

    What is and isn't racist is another subjective one, and changes with time. Some of it is cultural. For example, in my country Greeks and Italians called themselves and liked to be called "Wogs", Asian people were often called "Fobs" (which stands for fresh off the boat) and Indian's, Pakistani's and Sri Lankan people were called "curries". Elsewhere in the world this type of language was deemed offensive and racist. And nowadays it's far less often used. But up until the 2010's and beyond those were words used often here. Now it's deemed as racist language, but earlier on it wasn't. Not here anyway.

    I worked in call centers from 2001 - 2009 and often worked with people on work visas from other countries and they always got deeply offended if they would hear those words used, since in their countries those words were straight up racist. So I totally get that those words now are racist, but they weren't then. Things change. Standards change, and acceptable norms change. This is all reflected in the media of those periods. The term "wog" is still commonly used here.



    And even had movies with that in the title, with an actor of that ethnicity, openly calling themself that, since it's not a racial slur here. It's just a descriptor.

    Wikipedia article on it:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog

    Appears to be an Australian specific one, where it's not used as an offensive word here, but is in the UK. It's one of the key aspects to Australian language in the use of slang. Not so much a thing in American and Brittish English, where as here slang is part of our DNA. Not sure why but meh. In New Zealand it's the same as well.
    Last edited by icemann; 11th Jun 2020 at 23:42.

  5. #30
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    He has being sarcastic there.
    No, he wasn't.

    What is and isn't racist is another subjective one, and changes with time.
    And no, it isn't. This is wrong.

    Just because cultural norms allowed something to happen doesn't make it not racist. This isn't a matter of increased sensitivity over time, it's a matter of knowing that it's wrong and doing it anyway regardless and the amount of pushback to that attitude increasing over time. I know this tendency to overlay 'it's a friendly joke' over something or make it a communal affectation (for an entire fucking country no less), but that's really always an excuse to say something socially inappropriate and get away with it.

    The litmus test is would the race in question actually, really like being called that? If the answer is no, then stop doing it. That's not a sentiment constrained by the time period you live in - the human race didn't evolve empathy in just the last 50 years.

    I worked in call centers from 2001 - 2009 and often worked with people on work visas from other countries and they always got deeply offended if they would hear those words used, since in their countries those words were straight up racist.
    That should have clued you in far better than anything else.

  6. #31
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    So your saying that what is deemed racist in country A, but isn't in country B is therefore racist due to A?

    I don't agree at all.

    It's like how in some cultures, it's deemed as extremely offensive if a woman attempts to touch hands (in the form of a handshake or whatever) with a male that they are not intimate with, where as in others it's completely fine to do. All cultural. All subjective.

  7. #32
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    No, I'm saying that it's not relative in any way, shape, or form. Racism is racism whether it was okay in your country a hundred years ago or not, end of. Trying to justify it by saying cultural or social normalisation allowed for it therefore it wasn't racist back then is either incredibly poor thinking or a sign of warped values.

  8. #33
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Then I'd suggest you never travel to Australia or New Zealand as you'd likely be extremely offended, as those terms are commonly used in both countries everywhere. Even on television to this day.

  9. #34
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Oh, I've been called a 'fucking Paki' and a curry by people from Oz and NZ, both of which were inaccurate and amusing to me. (To clarify: I'm not calling you out, bob_, we've got a special relationship <3).

    Did I take those in stride and move on? Sure. Did it make those instances okay? No. Not at all.

  10. #35
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Well "fucking Paki" is straight up racism.

    Have to agree to disagree on this one, as I see it that cultural differences are the cause of much conflict since social norms are different everywhere. If we were to disallow every word and thing that is deemed racist somewhere, then we'd have no words left.

    In Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia it's deemed highly offensive if a woman wears suggestive clothing. Should we then change all women's clothing worldwide to abide by that, and to not cause offense? Hell no. My thinking's that as I said, social norms are different everywhere. And that's a factor that must be thought of when viewing media from a region or traveling there. Otherwise, your going to end up with a lot of pissed off people. Pre-internet days, this was MUCH less of an issue as it would be more the type of thing you'd educate a person travelling or immigrating to a country on the slang, social norms etc of said country, so as to warn the person ahead of time. Where as nowadays everything's online, and everyone's offended by something. Can't win .

  11. #36
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    I'm saying you're incredibly wrong, though, and I doubt I'm alone in that.

    You can't justify using the n-word today in any social context for a white person to call a black person that without being railed on by basically the entire planet today. You know why that is? It's not because it suddenly became wrong to say it. It's because it took years and decades to help people (and by people I don't just mean white people, but a whole bunch of everyone who isn't black) understand that it was always wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    If we were to disallow every word and thing that is deemed racist somewhere, then we'd have no words left.
    If you're serious about this, then you must have a seriously limited vocabulary.

    The rest of your post is whataboutism. Other religious contexts aren't what we're talking about, that's quite possibly the worst analogy you could have chosen: go ahead and call a Muslim woman a 'curry' and see if she's offended or not.

    We're talking about understanding basic decency when dealing with people, and when it comes to race there is no relative context for this specific topic. So do your thing and go 'meh whatever'.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 12th Jun 2020 at 00:44.

  12. #37
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Well your completely wrong sorry. Don't agree.

    The N word though sure, that's racist. Wog though isn't. Not in my country, and not by the people here of that ethnicity. I have many friends of those nationalities here, and to them (of their own saying to me) it's not racist. To you it is, and that's fine. But to me it's not. It's a descriptor.

    If you feel differently then that's something you'll have to take up with Wikipedia.

  13. #38
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Third grave from left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    I'm saying you're incredibly wrong, though, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
    You are not alone.

  14. #39
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Thank you, zombe.

    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    If you feel differently then that's something you'll have to take up with Wikipedia.
    Here's Google.



    Here's Wikipedia:

    'I think by defusing the word 'wog' we've shown our maturity and our great ability to adapt and just laugh things off, you know... When I first came [to Greece] and I started trying to explain to them why we got called 'wog' they'd get really angry about it, you know. They were, "Why? Why they say this about the Greek people?" You know? But then when they see what we've done with it—and this is the twist—that we've turned it into a term of endearment, they actually really get into that...'

    And in case you're missing the point, that's basically what African Americans did with the n-word to defang it as a slur. The fact remains that the burden of the emotional calculus has to be done by the people being called the word, not the people using it. And that's a problem; whether you agree or not is not relevant.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 12th Jun 2020 at 01:03.

  15. #40
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    I'm saying you're incredibly wrong, though, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
    The rest of your post is whataboutism. Other religious contexts aren't what we're talking about, that's quite possibly the worst analogy you could have chosen: go ahead and call a Muslim woman a 'curry' and see if she's offended or not.
    Why would one call a Muslim person a "curry"? Go and re-read my post on what that term refers to. Religion got nothing to do with it.

    The term "wog" here is not used as a derogatory term. It's a descriptor. Often used as a positive word. Don't believe me? I don't care. Go speak with someone here of that ethnicity. Outside of Australia it doesn't matter, as I was talking about cultural differences.

  16. #41
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    You're arguing a strawman, icemann. I won't go into exhaustive detail because it's tangential and entirely unrelated to what we're talking about, but you do know that a large number of Muslims live in India and Pakistan, right? And a fair amount of them in Oz didn't just come in from the Middle East? As for clothing, the reason behind burqas and hijabs and non-suggestive clothing is entirely religion-based.

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    I'm not arguing a strawman argument. Cultural differences are present throughout the world, with different norms and practices present. If you don't get how that works and think that rules for 1 apply to all, as that is your strawman argument then I can't help you.

  18. #43
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Unfortunately, you are, because attempting to normalise racism through religion or culture does not stop it from being racist.

    I understand that you don't really grok or get these concepts if I have to go as far as to explain Islam's take on clothing to outline why your reasoning is broken; but I hope you take a moment to really examine what I've typed out there in a manner that isn't clouded over by the weak communal defense of 'we've always done this as a community so it's okay'.

  19. #44
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    I could've worded the last paragraph of my reply a little better there.

  20. #45
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Blacks can take ownership over the n-word and I'm not about to say anything about it, but a sufficient number of people very vocally find it intolerable for other groups to use, no matter what the context, that I'd just as well defer my own judgement and not use it.

    The way that used to be a debate to me was doing karaoke. I would never use the word naturally anyway, but I used to feel it was important to recite lyrics just as an artist intended them, because art, recognized art at least, has always had special status for me and one shouldn't change it based on political whims... And of course you can hardly do any hiphop without the n-word all over the place. I think opinions are still divided about that, but now I generally leave it out if I can help it. (Sometimes it's literally hard to stop, especially if it's a fast rap I've listened to a lot).

    Gone with the Wind is an interesting data point for me these days. It was the movie that first put Trump on my radar as a racist ass. He was the guest host for a show called Turner Classic Movies, and his pick was Gone with the Wind. This was back in 2001. And what I most remember was, in explaining why he picked that movie, he went on and on unapologetically and without qualification how it was the grandest and most magnificent movie of all time, and IIRC that it was one of the most magnificent eras in US history ... of course. And I think the host kept giving him chances to qualify that, and every chance Trump got of course he'd double down on how fantastic the Antebellum South was. I never really bothered to care about him... He's always been a kind of D-list personality. So that was the first time I understood that he's more or less a horrible human being.

    I'm okay with movies being presented with explanatory commentary about its historical context and why we should rightfully find some of its values unacceptable today. No sense in mincing words about it. In the grand scheme of things ... I have to back up. I've studied Transitional Justice for a lot of countries, and what makes it work when it sort of works. The main model for a successful TJ process is called the "Forgiveness Model of Reconciliation", where the oppressor group from a conflict, after it ends, takes full ownership that their forefathers committed these awful atrocities at the time, and that we today are not the same people as our forefathers were. And then they take that redefinition of identity seriously with prosecutions and getting rid of all the accoutrements of the former identity, the flags and banners and slogans, etc.

    So then the oppressed group from the conflict is able to trust and forgive them, and both sides redefine their identity, like this is the "new South", or "the New South Africa", the "new Germany", etc., where we're all Americans or South Africans or Germans; we're in this democracy together. The point being, the principal reason a TJ process fails is when the former oppressor group never fully accepts that they're a different people than their forefathers that committed the atrocities. And the oppressed group never fully trusts them. Any good TJ process is going to spend a lot of time dealing with history education and memorialization. It comes up in case after case after case. So the way to think about this business about dismantling the flags and statues is really the US still needs to put itself through this transitional justice process and redefinition of identity that it's never gone through since the Civil War. If you don't do it, the problems don't disappear, and you have to confront these questions of identity and ownership one way or another, if not now, you'll only come right back to it in the future. The point is, you don't get reconciliation until it's done and done right.
    Last edited by demagogue; 12th Jun 2020 at 01:33.

  21. #46
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    icemann, you are just about one of the least self-reflective people I know, and your arguments in this discussion boils down to variations of "I'm not racist, so what I do cannot be racist, what my friends do cannot be racist, what I don't consider bad cannot be racist, that's the beginning and end of it." I cannot remember a single instance where you have taken an actual look at yourself, your opinions, your reactions. What you're saying is incoherent as an argument, because it always refers back to you and your own attitudes. You seem unable or unwilling to examine those, only to reconfirm them and then dress them up in commonplaces - and you follow up by not engaging what people actually say in response, you just go back to your default position.

    You don't see the contradictions and gaping holes in what you post, because honestly, at times you seem to listen to what you're saying as little as you listen to what others are saying.

    What you're saying about the W word and the N word, I've read pretty much exactly the same statements by people defending the N word. If you were to follow your own logic, they'd be as correct as you are and any problem with the N word is just down to cultural difference. So why is there a difference? Because.

    And your defense of bassoferol's statement as sarcastic is another case in point: you just see what you want to see, without *any* evidence, and then that's it. You think he's sarcastic so obviously he's sarcastic, so obviously there's no problem with what he's said. Why do you come to that conclusion? Because.

  22. #47
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    I'm saying you're incredibly wrong, though, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
    +1

    Although I'm biased, because to me he's been consistently wrong about so many things that I had him on ignore list for several years. That doesn't bother me now though

    Anyway, I don't see the whole thing as bad as well. The history of manners, European, American, and other, is full of changes like that. Again, it's not about banning things, although private entities can do whatever they want. But extrapolating their actions to a public TV is a misunderstanding, as its mission is different (or at least it's supposed to be different). I don't mind having a film like that amended with some kind of statement or commentary, if there seems to be a need for that. Hell, even something as recent as Friends has some embarrassing stuff in it (f.i. gay jokes, IIRC).

    All in all, it's good that we're changing, at least it seems like it's an evolution. Without it, there would be no such thing as sexual harassment for example, and all the weinsteins of the world would still do their thing.

  23. #48
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    Unfortunately, you are, because attempting to normalise racism through religion or culture does not stop it from being racist.

    I understand that you don't really grok or get these concepts if I have to go as far as to explain Islam's take on clothing to outline why your reasoning is broken; but I hope you take a moment to really examine what I've typed out there in a manner that isn't clouded over by the weak communal defense of 'we've always done this as a community so it's okay'.
    What you've not been understanding all this time, is that I've been completely getting what your saying, but I don't agree with you. So you've built up this strawman argument about cultural differences not mattering, that racism is a black and white (no pun intended) clear cut thing and a complete lack of understanding or how the world works. How do you even function in the real world? Learning how different cultures see and view things is key to being able to take part in any multi-cultural society.

    For example, a word or image can mean completely different things to different people. And perception of that can change with time. What is completely fine for one, may be offensive to another and vice versa. That's life. That is the world we live in. Should we create a system where by we don't have things that offends others? No I don't think we should. I see that as causing more harm than good over the long term, and is a MASSIVE failure of present day society. I use examples from religion to show how offense can be created due to differences in views. Your lack of insight there, shows that you need to out more often and see the world from new perspectives. If you can't see things from the other persons point of view, then your in real trouble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Judith View Post
    Although I'm biased, because to me he's been consistently wrong about so many things that I had him on ignore list for several years.
    Example of tribalism right there. When you surround yourself only with views you agree on. Thus strengthening your own views since you never debate or hear/read counterpoints.
    Last edited by icemann; 12th Jun 2020 at 02:41.

  24. #49
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    See, here again, you're wrong. You're somehow offering what is essentially a refutation of your own point as a counterpoint to mine - I don't know how you're managing this weird little dissonance.

    The thing is, I've always been part of a multicultural society, and part of that life is appreciating differences without offending everyone. We've got plenty of different races in the mix every single day, and we know how to get along most of the time - for instance, not only by respecting that some of our northeastern tribal communities are entirely matriarchal when we interact with them, but by also not calling our northeastern brethren 'chinkis', which is a slur. A cultural difference does not make a derogatory slur not a derogatory slur. A lot of people don't heed this, but then at least they also know they're wrong when they do that. (Officially, it's actually illegal to say it in India, which speaks to how serious the issue is.)

    The rest of what you're saying is pure projection (and your example of religion? You didn't even realise it was religion until I called that out). You don't get to take out your lack of understanding or social sensitivity on me, I'm afraid.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 12th Jun 2020 at 02:55.

  25. #50
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    So what about it is wrong? That words and images mean different things to different people, that can change with time? That racism isn't clear cut?

    And you were the first to start with the personal insults, just redirecting some your way. Just because one does not agree with you does not = them not understanding the topic, as that shows that your views on it is that this is a clear cut thing like I said. So your the only one that lacks the understanding sorry.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •