I bet you can find a Jewish person to make holocaust jokes.
You can totally find black people who will say bad stuff about other black people.
That doesn't mean suddeny holocaust jokes and racists stuff are suddenly fair game and nobody can cry racism ever or even in that specific incident. Much more extreme examples, but it makes the point for sure.
I think it would be a lot more effective if you were to convey your complaints to the woman who agreed to that, rather than the man/woman who recruited her.
This just kinda shows how illogical your thinking is on this target.
If you convey the complaints to the woman who agreed.... the person who hired them will try and hire a bunch of other people. Who you may or may not have to talk to about it if they accept.
Convey it to the person who recruited them... and they stop and it solves the problem.
Outside which, the women didn't do anything wrong. The person hiring them did. Those women are just trying to make a living.
It's the person who hired them that would be the douche.
Also... with the bolded.... seriously dude? What's wrong with you.
Louis CK puts it best....
To use a different sort of example giving one person penacilin and another person something else because they're allergic to penacilin isn't a double standard.
Context 100% matters.
Nigger is worse then cracker, because nigger has hundreds of years of negative conotations. Cracker... has zero connotations behind it.
Wanting to eat one of these pieces of pizza and not the other isn't a double standard.
LOL.
So you want white people to not be offended, because they are white.
LIke I said, if you go around insulting others and get insulted back, don't complain, regardless of your race or whatever. Regardless of what insult you receive. Because not everything is a level playing field, especially insults.
The video was great btw. However he states that a white person in general would not get offended as much as a black guy, however that is no reason again, to tolerate it against either of them.
Your analogy is wrong. They are not equal pizzas. Whereas women dancing and men dancing is the same. As well as a black comedian and a white comedian. A black person and a white person are equal.
Insulting a group is the same regardless of which group they are.
I bet you can find a Jewish person to make holocaust jokes.
You can totally find black people who will say bad stuff about other black people.
That doesn't mean suddeny holocaust jokes and racists stuff are suddenly fair game and nobody can cry racism ever or even in that specific incident. Much more extreme examples, but it makes the point for sure.
I think it would be a lot more effective if you were to convey your complaints to the woman who agreed to that, rather than the man/woman who recruited her.
This just kinda shows how illogical your thinking is on this target.
If you convey the complaints to the woman who agreed.... the person who hired them will try and hire a bunch of other people. Who you may or may not have to talk to about it if they accept.
Convey it to the person who recruited them... and they stop and it solves the problem.
Outside which, the women didn't do anything wrong. The person hiring them did. Those women are just trying to make a living.
It's the person who hired them that would be the douche.
Not really. The person dancing is doing something wrong if there is something wrong with it. You have to prove that something is absolutely wrong. That clearly, in every one's mind this is nothing but WRONG, and that it should not be tolerated. Hiring people is actually good.
As for the bolded, there is so much wrong with it.
Because a person doesn't just get recruited. The dancers weren't (probably) sitting around doing nothing when they were approached by the people hiring them. They were probably professional dancers.
Which means they prepare themselves for this.
And if they are earning their livelihood by this, isn't that a good thing?
Since you are such a fan of analogies, here is another one:
The people who sell drugs are just trying to earn their living. The one's who buy it are the real douches.
Also... with the bolded.... seriously dude? What's wrong with you.
Louis CK puts it best....
To use a different sort of example giving one person penacilin and another person something else because they're allergic to penacilin isn't a double standard.
Context 100% matters.
Nigger is worse then cracker, because nigger has hundreds of years of negative conotations. Cracker... has zero connotations behind it.
Wanting to eat one of these pieces of pizza and not the other isn't a double standard.
LOL.
So you want white people to not be offended, because they are white.
LIke I said, if you go around insulting others and get insulted back, don't complain, regardless of your race or whatever. Regardless of what insult you receive. Because not everything is a level playing field, especially insults.
The video was great btw. However he states that a white person in general would not get offended as much as a black guy, however that is no reason again, to tolerate it against either of them.
Your analogy is wrong. They are not equal pizzas. Whereas women dancing and men dancing is the same. As well as a black comedian and a white comedian. A black person and a white person are equal.
Insulting a group is the same regardless of which group they are.
No. I want white people to not be offended because cracker doesn't really mean anything. It's like if i called you a cabbage. It's nonsensical. Like Louis CK said at worst it brings you back to a time when your people were rich and owned land and people.
Heck, lets ignore two races, If you call a black person ugly, he's going to be less offended then if you call him a nigger.
Why is that? Is there a double standard there? (Hint: no.)
Men and women dancing is not the same. It does NOT hold the same context.
If you call a white dude a spick for example... it doesn't hold the same context as calling a hispanic dude a spic.
If you cook a meal for a white dude and make him Chicken and Watermelon with a side of Colt 45. He's going to think your weird.
Cook the same meal for a black guy.... and he's going to think your a racist.
Why? Context.
Do you think there is a double standard there? I mean your making them both the same (awful) meal afterll.
I bet you can find a Jewish person to make holocaust jokes.
You can totally find black people who will say bad stuff about other black people.
That doesn't mean suddeny holocaust jokes and racists stuff are suddenly fair game and nobody can cry racism ever or even in that specific incident. Much more extreme examples, but it makes the point for sure.
I think it would be a lot more effective if you were to convey your complaints to the woman who agreed to that, rather than the man/woman who recruited her.
This just kinda shows how illogical your thinking is on this target.
If you convey the complaints to the woman who agreed.... the person who hired them will try and hire a bunch of other people. Who you may or may not have to talk to about it if they accept.
Convey it to the person who recruited them... and they stop and it solves the problem.
Outside which, the women didn't do anything wrong. The person hiring them did. Those women are just trying to make a living.
It's the person who hired them that would be the douche.
Not really. The person dancing is doing something wrong if there is something wrong with it. You have to prove that something is absolutely wrong. That clearly, in every one's mind this is nothing but WRONG, and that it should not be tolerated. Hiring people is actually good.
As for the bolded, there is so much wrong with it.
Because a person doesn't just get recruited. The dancers weren't (probably) sitting around doing nothing when they were approached by the people hiring them. They were probably professional dancers.
Which means they prepare themselves for this.
And if they are earning their livelihood by this, isn't that a good thing?
Since you are such a fan of analogies, here is another one:
The people who sell drugs are just trying to earn their living. The one's who buy it are the real douches.
There's nothing wrong with being a professional dancer. The problem isn't proffesional dancers exist. It's where they are used.
There is nothing wrong with selling drugs. There's nothing wrong with using drugs. People who buy drugs to use on the job are the real douches.
The person who bought the services/product and decided they should be used in an inappopriate way are in fact, the douches.
Nigger is worse then cracker, because nigger has hundreds of years of negative conotations. Cracker... has zero connotations behind it.
Cracker does have decidedly negative connotations, even if they're not as strong.
Your earlier example, that it's offensive if Michael Richards says nigger because he's white but not when Chris Rock says cracker because he's black, is the very definition of a double standard because it violates the basic premise that no one should be treated differently because of his race. That is similar to how critical race theory holds that there can't be simple and universal application of the law because past injustices have to be made up for with... new injustices, really, only in the opposite direction, when in reality the best way to do away with discrimination is to stop discriminating altogether.
Now, the specifics of the actual situations are what make them different: Rock says cracker in the process of telling a joke, whereas when Richards said nigger he did so in anger. Being unfunny is already a cardinal sin for a comedian, so it was that much worse when he flew off the handle and made it racial. That's the context that matters.
Nigger is worse then cracker, because nigger has hundreds of years of negative conotations. Cracker... has zero connotations behind it.
Cracker does have decidedly negative connotations, even if they're not as strong.
Your earlier example, that it's offensive if Michael Richards says nigger because he's white but not when Chris Rock says cracker because he's black, is the very definition of a double standard because it violates the basic premise that no one should be treated differently because of his race. That is similar to how critical race theory holds that there can't be simple and universal application of the law because past injustices have to be made up for with... new injustices, really, only in the opposite direction, when in reality the best way to do away with discrimination is to stop discriminating altogether.
Now, the specifics of the actual situations are what make them different: Rock says cracker in the process of telling a joke, whereas when Richards said nigger he did so in anger. Being unfunny is already a cardinal sin for a comedian, so it was that much worse when he flew off the handle and made it racial. That's the context that matters.
I couldn't disagree more. Even if Chris Rock just called someone a cracker in anger.... nobody would care. Not because of double standards, but because there just isn't a sufficent history there to bug people. Being called a cracker isn't essentially being equated to property.
You can't get rid of something like sexism or racistm without getting rid of sexist and racist actions and words. Which means your going to get angry and specific things with racist and sexist commments. Therefore clearly you are going to get more upset at things which have more context to them, and completely blow off stuff that doesn't make sense or has little context.
No. I want white people to not be offended because cracker doesn't really mean anything. It's like if i called you a cabbage. It's nonsensical.
Heck, lets ignore two raCesIf you call a black person ugly, he's going to be less offended then if you call him a nigger.
Why is that? Is there a double standard there? (Hint: no.)
Men and women dancing is not the same. It does NOT hold the same context.
If you call a white dude a spick for example... it doesn't hold the same context as calling a hispanic dude a spic.
If you cook a meal for a white dude and make him Chicken and Watermelon with a side of Colt 45. He's going to think your weird.
Cook the same meal for a black guy.... and he's going to think your a racist.
Why? Context.
Context? What context is there in a woman dancing and a man dancing? You have already made up your mind that it is something wrong, you realize not everyone agrees with you ? CLEARLY those women who dance don't agree with you, because they are ok with dancing being their living.
As far as the black vs white argument is considered, I did say that the white person will get less offended than the black guy. But they are both trying to do the same thing really. An insult is usually thrown around to make the other side feel bad, or it is used to create comedy. In the latter's case there is absolutely no reason to get upset about it imo because the person's intention may not be to insult? In the former if you feel it is wrong to make a person feel bad through the usage of racial abuse than it is wrong to make him feel bad through any other.
Not really. The person dancing is doing something wrong if there is something wrong with it. You have to prove that something is absolutely wrong. That clearly, in every one's mind this is nothing but WRONG, and that it should not be tolerated. Hiring people is actually good.
As for the bolded, there is so much wrong with it.
Because a person doesn't just get recruited. The dancers weren't (probably) sitting around doing nothing when they were approached by the people hiring them. They were probably professional dancers.
Which means they prepare themselves for this.
And if they are earning their livelihood by this, isn't that a good thing?
Since you are such a fan of analogies, here is another one:
The people who sell drugs are just trying to earn their living. The one's who buy it are the real douches.
There's nothing wrong with being a professional dancer. The problem isn't proffesional dancers exist. It's where they are used.
There is nothing wrong with selling drugs. There's nothing wrong with using drugs. People who buy drugs to use on the job are the real douches.
The person who bought the services/product and decided they should be used in an inappopriate way are in fact, the douches.
Then how is it sexist? Here is the thing. If the problem is the venue of the dancers and the dancers themselves, then it is just inappropriate. Not sexist.
