Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

We are too sensitive as a society

vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 3:51:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
http://www.aol.com...

Red, White, and Blue sections for you know the colors of the flag? To make a racial connotation to this despite absolutely no intent is searching for butt hurt to be had. This is exactly why this type of rhetoric is becoming tired and people are losing interest and it has absolutely no weight anymore.

I'm sure my white privilege is showing.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 3:52:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 3:51:00 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.aol.com...

Red, White, and Blue sections for you know the colors of the flag? To make a racial connotation to this despite absolutely no intent is searching for butt hurt to be had. This is exactly why this type of rhetoric is becoming tired and people are losing interest and it has absolutely no weight anymore.

I'm sure my white privilege is showing.

Nothing like a full on migrant invasion to make racism take a back burner to survival.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 4:43:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 3:51:00 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.aol.com...

Red, White, and Blue sections for you know the colors of the flag? To make a racial connotation to this despite absolutely no intent is searching for butt hurt to be had. This is exactly why this type of rhetoric is becoming tired and people are losing interest and it has absolutely no weight anymore.

I'm sure my white privilege is showing.

I am interested in who made the racial connotation/association and who was butt hurt? The article didn't make it clear whether there was anything who was offended or butt hurt, or whether there were anyone getting angry or upset about it.

I am also interested in whether or not you feel that someone doing something without any racial intent, realizing that there is a racial connotation that you could draw from it and removing it, is actually a bad thing, and why?
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 5:41:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 4:43:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/19/2016 3:51:00 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.aol.com...

Red, White, and Blue sections for you know the colors of the flag? To make a racial connotation to this despite absolutely no intent is searching for butt hurt to be had. This is exactly why this type of rhetoric is becoming tired and people are losing interest and it has absolutely no weight anymore.

I'm sure my white privilege is showing.

I am interested in who made the racial connotation/association and who was butt hurt? The article didn't make it clear whether there was anything who was offended or butt hurt, or whether there were anyone getting angry or upset about it.


I am also interested in whether or not you feel that someone doing something without any racial intent, realizing that there is a racial connotation that you could draw from it and removing it, is actually a bad thing, and why?

Fair question, I can only speak to what I read in the comments section of various articles related to this story about the outrage. The question you posed to me would depend on circumstance I imagine. I appreciate someone being thoughtful of others and removing it of their own volition, but things are getting ridiculous. I'll give you another example.. In both examples I don't think a change is necessary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,635
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 7:12:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 3:51:00 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.aol.com...

Red, White, and Blue sections for you know the colors of the flag? To make a racial connotation to this despite absolutely no intent is searching for butt hurt to be had. This is exactly why this type of rhetoric is becoming tired and people are losing interest and it has absolutely no weight anymore.

I'm sure my white privilege is showing.

Would anybody care if the elevators were black?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,067
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 7:35:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The GOP cannot win this game, because no matter what they do the media will find something to invent a new controversy over.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,067
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 7:37:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The "Paul Ryan and the white interns selfie" thing proves that. If Obama or Hillary Clinton took that same picture with a bunch of white interns, nobody would care. But since it's a GOP figure who did the picture, it must be RACISM!
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 7:55:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 7:35:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The GOP cannot win this game, because no matter what they do the media will find something to invent a new controversy over.

They can't win because they are inept at being color blind. You can't ask everyone to be color blind while maintaining a laundry list of exceptions to color blindness.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 8:17:48 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 3:51:00 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.aol.com...

Red, White, and Blue sections for you know the colors of the flag? To make a racial connotation to this despite absolutely no intent is searching for butt hurt to be had. This is exactly why this type of rhetoric is becoming tired and people are losing interest and it has absolutely no weight anymore.

I'm sure my white privilege is showing.

I agree that the U.S. has become WAY too sensitive. A perfect example of this is the changes just made to the voting committee for the Oscar awards. I am in no way interested in the awards, as it's simply one of many award shows where disgustingly rich D-Bags gather to rub each other's nipples and stroke each other's egos for a few hours.

However, the voting committee has just been gutted and rules / regulations slated to be altered shortly; not because there is something wrong, not because corruption was uncovered, but because "There were no black actors or actresses nominated for the top four awards." Oh WAH! Cry, cry, cry, and cry some more; that will surely result in a better, more appealing end product. Just get it over with and quit handing out awards all together. Just have everybody walk in and spend 12 hours talking about their outfits that cost more than the average family makes in a decade. Sit everyone down for their photo ops, $75,000 swag bags, give them their camera time, then call them up in a line like a high school graduation, and hand everyone a blue participation ribbon.

Too darn sensitive is an understatement.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 8:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 7:55:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/19/2016 7:35:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The GOP cannot win this game, because no matter what they do the media will find something to invent a new controversy over.

They can't win because they are inept at being color blind. You can't ask everyone to be color blind while maintaining a laundry list of exceptions to color blindness.

Please elaborate.
idoubtit
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 9:59:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 7:37:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The "Paul Ryan and the white interns selfie" thing proves that. If Obama or Hillary Clinton took that same picture with a bunch of white interns, nobody would care. But since it's a GOP figure who did the picture, it must be RACISM!

Bill Clinton only sexually harassed white women. The GOP should endeavor to point that out.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 12:33:14 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 5:41:45 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 7/19/2016 4:43:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/19/2016 3:51:00 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.aol.com...

Red, White, and Blue sections for you know the colors of the flag? To make a racial connotation to this despite absolutely no intent is searching for butt hurt to be had. This is exactly why this type of rhetoric is becoming tired and people are losing interest and it has absolutely no weight anymore.

I'm sure my white privilege is showing.

I am interested in who made the racial connotation/association and who was butt hurt? The article didn't make it clear whether there was anything who was offended or butt hurt, or whether there were anyone getting angry or upset about it.


I am also interested in whether or not you feel that someone doing something without any racial intent, realizing that there is a racial connotation that you could draw from it and removing it, is actually a bad thing, and why?

Fair question, I can only speak to what I read in the comments section of various articles related to this story about the outrage. The question you posed to me would depend on circumstance I imagine. I appreciate someone being thoughtful of others and removing it of their own volition, but things are getting ridiculous. I'll give you another example.. In both examples I don't think a change is necessary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I wanted to start off by saying that I'm offering this as a discussion, because you actually seem pretty reasonable, and I was actually thinking we could have a decent intellectual conversation about this; which may make a change from the rest of he cr*p in this forum!

I think there are actually multiple facets to this; and I actually would agree that of all the things you could get angry at both of these seem fairly innocent.

You are absolutely right though, it does depend on context, it does depend on many things.

On the one hand, you have stuff like people dressing up in Black-face, or finding Koffing in the Holocaust Museum in Pokemon Go; is stuff that I'm pretty sure we both agree that people have a legitimate to reason to be outraged by.

On the other you have stuff like this, or the pool picture; which seem to be innocuously innocent.

If people protested, and rioted over them, I would be very much with you. If this level was legally enforced, rather than voluntarily/publically shamed, I would also agree with you that this is too far.

I don't think either of those two things happen; and I get the feeling that it's the Facebook and twitter warriors, rather than necessarily society as a whole that raise the issue (because you know, it's the internet and it's easy!), it can sometimes be "spun" that way, and sometimes be portrayed that way by the media, but I don't think that's true.

There are, however, 3 key points that I wanted to mention, that I think may help put across my point of view.

1.) Given that we know that there are some things that people can get legitimately outraged by; do you think it's better for companies and organizations to go too far, than not far enough in terms of reacting to offense?

2.) In a country where there are still significant number of racial issues, accusations and instances of both actual racism, and unconscious or accidental discrimination without necessarily intent, do you feel this type of thing could be helpful in raising awareness, and making people more aware of their own actions and perceptions when it comes to race? (Not necessarily this specific one, but in general)

3.) People tend to Rail again PC culture and being outraged by things. Do you view some of the Right being outraged at the "War against Christmas" or at the "War against Christians", or at people being PC in general, at Islam, immigrants, at liberals or democrats in general, and others as pretty much the same thing?

This is important, for example, how is one person (I think from the article it was one person), commenting on what they view as a racially offensive image worse than, say, a Christian seeing a Red star bucks christmas coffee cup and declaring that there is now a war against christmas, and a great number of people loosing their sh*t? I think in many ways this "too sensitive a society" seems to cut both ways, left and right; do you agree?
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 1:31:12 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone! - Frank Zappa/LAX
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:47:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
"Everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time." - Anita Sarkeesian

The rally cry of the Socjus crowd.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:56:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 7:37:34 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The "Paul Ryan and the white interns selfie" thing proves that. If Obama or Hillary Clinton took that same picture with a bunch of white interns, nobody would care. But since it's a GOP figure who did the picture, it must be RACISM!

https://twitter.com...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 5:06:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 7:55:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/19/2016 7:35:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The GOP cannot win this game, because no matter what they do the media will find something to invent a new controversy over.

They can't win because they are inept at being color blind. You can't ask everyone to be color blind while maintaining a laundry list of exceptions to color blindness.

Everyone is inept at being colorblind. The entire idea of color blindness is mocked both on the right and on the left as a sort of febrile denialism of how complex racial issues can be. It's only really maintained by that detached upper strata of mostly white society that girdles the space between country club Republicans and bourgeois liberals.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 5:18:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 12:33:14 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/19/2016 5:41:45 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 7/19/2016 4:43:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/19/2016 3:51:00 PM, vortex86 wrote:
http://www.aol.com...

Red, White, and Blue sections for you know the colors of the flag? To make a racial connotation to this despite absolutely no intent is searching for butt hurt to be had. This is exactly why this type of rhetoric is becoming tired and people are losing interest and it has absolutely no weight anymore.

I'm sure my white privilege is showing.

I am interested in who made the racial connotation/association and who was butt hurt? The article didn't make it clear whether there was anything who was offended or butt hurt, or whether there were anyone getting angry or upset about it.


I am also interested in whether or not you feel that someone doing something without any racial intent, realizing that there is a racial connotation that you could draw from it and removing it, is actually a bad thing, and why?

Fair question, I can only speak to what I read in the comments section of various articles related to this story about the outrage. The question you posed to me would depend on circumstance I imagine. I appreciate someone being thoughtful of others and removing it of their own volition, but things are getting ridiculous. I'll give you another example.. In both examples I don't think a change is necessary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I wanted to start off by saying that I'm offering this as a discussion, because you actually seem pretty reasonable, and I was actually thinking we could have a decent intellectual conversation about this; which may make a change from the rest of he cr*p in this forum!

I think there are actually multiple facets to this; and I actually would agree that of all the things you could get angry at both of these seem fairly innocent.

You are absolutely right though, it does depend on context, it does depend on many things.

On the one hand, you have stuff like people dressing up in Black-face, or finding Koffing in the Holocaust Museum in Pokemon Go; is stuff that I'm pretty sure we both agree that people have a legitimate to reason to be outraged by.

On the other you have stuff like this, or the pool picture; which seem to be innocuously innocent.

If people protested, and rioted over them, I would be very much with you. If this level was legally enforced, rather than voluntarily/publically shamed, I would also agree with you that this is too far.

I don't think either of those two things happen; and I get the feeling that it's the Facebook and twitter warriors, rather than necessarily society as a whole that raise the issue (because you know, it's the internet and it's easy!), it can sometimes be "spun" that way, and sometimes be portrayed that way by the media, but I don't think that's true.

There are, however, 3 key points that I wanted to mention, that I think may help put across my point of view.


1.) Given that we know that there are some things that people can get legitimately outraged by; do you think it's better for companies and organizations to go too far, than not far enough in terms of reacting to offense?

2.) In a country where there are still significant number of racial issues, accusations and instances of both actual racism, and unconscious or accidental discrimination without necessarily intent, do you feel this type of thing could be helpful in raising awareness, and making people more aware of their own actions and perceptions when it comes to race? (Not necessarily this specific one, but in general)

3.) People tend to Rail again PC culture and being outraged by things. Do you view some of the Right being outraged at the "War against Christmas" or at the "War against Christians", or at people being PC in general, at Islam, immigrants, at liberals or democrats in general, and others as pretty much the same thing?

This is important, for example, how is one person (I think from the article it was one person), commenting on what they view as a racially offensive image worse than, say, a Christian seeing a Red star bucks christmas coffee cup and declaring that there is now a war against christmas, and a great number of people loosing their sh*t? I think in many ways this "too sensitive a society" seems to cut both ways, left and right; do you agree?

I don't think it's okay for a company to go so far out of their way to not insult that they bring issue where none is necessary. I think that racial division is going to only grow if people are hypersensitive to it. Red Cross deciding to change the signs and spending large amounts of money to do so is the problem with this mindset. I think any rationale person would band together against people that are indeed in the wrong and worthy of criticisms. I would say if it stays true to their company motto/beliefs then that's their decision. I as a stakeholder in one of those organizations would reevaluate my position if I'm spending money that shouldn't be spent (the Red Cross Lifeguard signs example).

In regards to racial issues that exist consciously or unconsciously, I don't think there is any extra need to bring issue to it through non-issues. It muddles actual grievances, and err on the crying wolf theme. Racism does still exist, but I wouldn't say it's the majority. My brothers in arms come in any and all races and I'd stand beside or in front of any of them to protect them or stand up for them when they've been wronged. I do the same thing at work and it doesn't matter what race they are, it's just a matter of right or wrong. I think that affects more change. If you see something, say something. This doesn't mean you should go out of your way to find something (I apologize if this wasn't more clear).

I guess my biggest issue would be the fact that even racists have a 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, and we have every right per the same 1st amendment to tell them off if we chose to. I don't think a company should be told what they can and can't do, people have the power of their pocketbooks to react as they deem fit. I think the Starbucks Christmas cup fiasco to be a joke though, so yes both sides have their overly sensitive moments.