This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Racism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I'm not missing the point- are you reading my arguments? I'm explaining that changing the scope of a problem does in fact change the nature of a problem. If certain countries are in the control of people who are violent, dangerous, and power-hungry, and those people use their influence to keep their citizens ignorant of what is going on in the world and fearful of an extermination by an enemy that they have fabricated to keep their people scared enough to stay in line, then the solution is to fight dictatorships and promote education and free information to get those people out from under those pricks. If the problem is that 50% of the total population are violent and hateful, independent of the lies of their leaders, then you have to find a way to either eliminate or subjugate 50% of the population. Do you see the problem in not defining the scope correctly?
Yep. I see that problem.
I'm going to like.... ask you a question.
How many people do you think died from this "incorrect scope"? How many innocent Muslims were beat to death by people after they heard the O'Reily factor and went out to get vengeance?
I see the problem. It is a problem. It isn't THAT MUCH OF A BIG DEAL. It's not the root cause for racism. It isn't the root cause for these vicious acts of violence. Laying the blame for racism and bigotry at the feet of O'Reily, and a mistake O'Reily made, is a gimmick.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It's not his fault, I agree. The people who commit hates crimes are responsible for what they do- 100%. But when stupid violent people are fed misinformation that makes it seem like any woman in a head scarf has a fifty-fifty shot at being pro-terrorist, it makes a situation worse, and makes them feel justified in doing something to them. It's a mob mentality- racists are reinforced by other racists, they feel validated in their opinions when others share them, and it escalates.
Like three weeks ago, an Iraqi woman in California was beaten to death and a note was left by her body that said "Go back to your country, you terrorist". There have been several cases of soldiers overseas murdering and raping children, the elderly, etc., because they were all "Insert racial epithet here." It might not be because of Bill O'reilly, but someone thought that all Muslims must be terrorists, or enough of them that they were probably killing a future terrorist when they shot a 9 year old in the head. If lying about numbers, and painting a picture that half of all Muslims support terrorism causes even one innocent death, isn't that enough to be a problem? How many people HAVE to die as a result before it becomes a big deal?
The biggest problem with most countries under authoritarian regimes, is that the people have a skewed view of reality that is fed to them by propaganda machines. They are told that all Americans want to destroy them, and that we're all their enemy. They have no access to global news coverage, no freedom to disagree with whether or not that make sense, and no access to American publications that paint a different picture. And so that is their opinion of us.
We have access to all of the information we need to correctly identify the problems- to then exaggerate the issue, and try to convince our population to think the same way they encourage their to should be beneath us.
EDIT: And also, if trying to convince us that we need to fight an entire population, across multiple countries including our own, rather than sticking to fighting rogue governments and terrorist cells, isn't a big deal, what WOULD be considered a big deal?
Post by
MyTie
misinformation that makes it seem like any woman in a head scarf has a fifty-fifty shot at being pro-terrorist
That's not even close to what O'Reily said. He was talking about Muslim on Muslim repression for one. Second, it may be true to say that 50% of Muslims want repression of other Muslims. It's immeasurable, so not responsible to state as fact, but it may very well be true.
The reason that this writer stated this, about him and about Gingrich, I maintain, is purely to politicize the issue. I find it detestable.
Anyway. I think we are a bit off topic.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Good opinion piece, I thought.
Post by
MyTie
Good opinion piece, I thought.
Agreed! I think that the black people who will protest at white on black crimes, but not mention black on white crimes, are racist. They see race, and base their actions and protests on that alone, regardless of facts. The biggest socially accepted racists in culture these days are people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
How the hell are white, heterosexual guys oppressed?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't know that I'd call them oppressed. I will agree that it's the most socially acceptable form of racism, though.
Post by
MyTie
I don't know that I'd call them oppressed. I will agree that it's the most socially acceptable form of racism, though.
Yep. But, it's very uncool to say so. Expect mockery, as you can see.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I don't mind white heterosexual christian males being made fun of, as long as everyone else can get the same treatment.
But if you make fun of someone who doesn't fit into one of those categories, expect to be handed your heart.
If you make fun of a black person, you are racist. If you make fun of a homosexual, you are homophobic. If you make fun of a Muslim, you are bigoted anti-religious. If you make fun of a woman, you are misogynistic.
You guys seen that subway commercial with the black guy and the white guy eating an Italian sub, and then they are riding through Italy on a moped and some girl is like "chow" to them, and the black guy really cooly replies "chow', and the white guy really obnoxiously and immaturely shouts "chow", as if he is desperate, and the black guy is like "dude". Nothing bad there. But if the roles were reversed, and the black guy were portrayed in a negative light, subway would be forced to pull the ad due to the negative campaign led against them by angry crowds.
It isn't so much the ad that bothers me, but the double standard by society.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It's true, and it's a total double standard. It's just as racist no matter what race you are mocking/hating/judging.
I think the reason that it's so much easier to get away with, is there's a lot less guilt associated with that racism, because in this country the white heterosexual male has historically been in a position to not suffer as a result of people's racism or sexism. The white male had the right to vote since the country came to be. They had a monopoly on political power, higher education, money, land, etc. for a very long time. They were never, as a race or gender, considered property and subjected to the abuses that came with that.
Definitely not an excuse, or a good reason, and it doesn't make racism any less stupid when you have a less oppressed group you're racist against. But I think socially, I think that a lot of the push against racism is fueled by rage over what was done to members of your race, or guilt over what was done by members of your own race. And those factors don't have nearly the same weight behind them in the case of anti-white or anti-male sentiment, so people blow it off as not important.
Post by
MyTie
But I think socially, I think that a lot of the push against racism is fueled by rage over what was done to members of your race, or guilt over what was done by members of your own race.
Which is itself racist.
What gets me is there are a lot of people, some on this board, who beleive that you CANNOT be racist against a majority group. They believe that it is an impossibility. Only white people can be racist. It is not possible for a minority group to be racist. Even if you can show instances of black racism, you are mocked for being "scared of the minority". There is no teaching some people, or even discussing it.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Society is the judge.
I agree with what you said. If you think it is ok to make fun of anyone, fine. What I don't agree with is this part of your post. Society isn't a very good judge. If it is up to society, some people are ok to make fun of, and others are not.
And it isn't just "making fun of". It is acceptable to be racist beyond humor, to behavior, speech, and beliefs. It isn't just legal to be racist against white people, but acceptable. It's legal to be racist against anyone. But, racist against blacks will get you ostracized, but racist against whites won't even get you noticed.
Post by
Orranis
You mean the elections where, per the news thread, we established that about 11% of the population voted for the party that took the lead, a third of which probably couldn't read? And this was in a country where the population's access to information is filtered through the very people that are a danger to the rest of the world?
What a wonderful illustration. Re-read this to yourself. Look at the problem here. Now compare that to Orranis's comparison problem. He tried to draw some parallel to Christianity to show me the big problem with O'Reily's comments. I'm just showing how that doesn't hold up.
Now I see that O'Reily's use of 50% is inaccurate. I don't need that demonstrated. I never said it was accurate. I'm just saying that pointing that out as the cause of, what, a brutal murder? No. Just, no. This is pure demonization of people with differing political beliefs.
This is like a cook putting to much salt in my biscuits, and I'm like, "Hey cook, there is too much salt in this biscuit and it caused the holocaust", and the cook is like "That didn't cause the holocaust", and I'm like "Have you tasted the salt in this biscuit". 50% accurate? Perhaps not. The cause of bigotry in the US? No. No. NO. Resoundingly NOOOO.
There's a different between being a cause of something and perpetuating it. Reducing a vast population, separated by race, ethnicity, or religion, to a single negative opinion or trait would be a working definition for racism. People listen to O'Reily, so when he makes statements like that people believe him. I don't understand how saying that O'Reily is perpetuating bigotry with those comments is demonizing him, yet saying that an entire half of a huge religion that spans an incredible and varied number of cultures, nations, and individuals all share the same negative world view is an 'inaccuracy.'
Post by
MyTie
Orranis ~ Would you say that half of all Christians want to ban homosexual marriage?
=D This is gonna be fun. It's just a matter of time before you have to concede something negative about a large population and then I can get you for... how do you say it... "perpetuating bigotry". For now we will use groups it is socially acceptable to point out obvious negatives about, and currently, Christians top that list.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, the problem is if O'Reily said: "Some Muslims are against freedom and human rights", I would have no problem with it, because well, it is as accurate as saying that "Some Christians want to ban homosexual marriage". It is true and he does not sound like bigot. But 50% is the problem. It is almost a majority, which might cause problems for others...
I wonder how many Muslims in the world are against against human rights. I wonder what that % would look like. I wish there were some way to measure it. It isn't a stretch of the imagination to conclude that it might be 50%, or even more, especially considering the human rights history of
Muslim populated countries
. These things are not made up to try to perpetuate bigotry, but to point out very real problems.
I understand that he pulled 50% out of his hat. He didn't say 50%, but that's neither here nor there. His comment wasn't measured, and wasn't prudent, but its unprovable, and should have been withheld. I'm not arguing that that is or is not the point.
What I am trying to say is that that mistake on O'Reily show doesn't perpetuate the negative image Muslims have. I would say that the negative image they have is vastly self perpetuated, as a group. Certainly, I'm not here to indict on an individual basis, but like I said, massive human rights violations, grotesque and daily violence, mass acts of terror... THOSE are the real culprit. Pinning the bad image on Bill O'Reily's unprovable assertion is incorrect and intentionally misrepresenting the problem. That in itself causes more of a problem than Bill O'Reily does, I believe. I believe that people who want to blame problems on people OTHER THAN the source do more of a disservice to solving the problem than they do to help. If I were Muslim, I'd be irate that other Muslims were giving me a bad name.
Let's flip this around:
I'm Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I am angry at Christians who run around and crusade against homosexuality, spraying venom. If someone said that the half of Christians out there that cause problems for people's personal lives need to lay off, then I would be more apt to continue blaming the Christians causing the rucus than I would to try to fight against the "half" in the comment. It isn't that person's comments on some Christian's negative actions that is causing the bad image. Those Christians themselves are causing the bad image. To try to blame that person for our negative image would be misrepresenting the problem and doing a disservice to actually fixing the problem.
Get it?
Post by
Adamsm
Honestly, for those who are picking on the O'Reily Factor....remember, he's the king of spin doctors, and enjoys using buzz words and comments designed to do precisely what is happening here: Causing furor, stirring up things, and just sitting back and enjoying. Does he mean the bile he spews? Who knows; I hope not, but he could. Beyond that, meh.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.