Maybe it did. I don't remember much in the way of how quickly I responded.
Looking for genuine discourse re:Jay-Z/NBA
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
Maybe it did. I don't remember much in the way of how quickly I responded.
I think that is fairly clear. To me at least.
Even wealthy black men, dressed in suits, were stopped and frisked in New York City. Being upper class does not make one immune from the effects of racism.
Bumping this since it's typical of O_B to ignore anything that doesn't promote his agenda.
The first two posts from sirkickyass.
I agree they are dismissive, however, they are not aggressive in any way, but rather, fairly calm and peaceable. You seem to think being dismissed on the issue is the same as being a victim of aggression. Do you think your opinions are so clearly correct that to dismiss them is to be aggressive in and of itself?
As for "meaningful conversation", a conversation that begins in a notion a reverse racism is no more meaningful that one that starts with a notion of a 6000-year-old earth or the earth being flat. These positions are wrong on all the objective evidence. You can have meaningful conversations about why they are wrong, but not if they are wrong.
Of course you have every right to an opinion. You don't have any right to have that opinion treated as being relevant, interesting, accurate, or viable. You have to earn those designations.
First, I want to say that I completely believe you regarding your intent. I'm sure you had no intention of advertising your privilege, and I don't think you would ever try to defend being racist.
One thing to keep in mind is that privilege in this context (white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, able-bodied privilege, etc.) is different from superiority. White superiority is an active position that someone might defend; white privilege is a gift that you often don't realize you are being given. We (collectively) didn't ask for teachers to call on us more, give us more encouragement, and spend more time with us than with our black peers; but we responded to the attention, regardless. We don't ask policemen to search our cars less and give us fewer traffic tickets, but they do it anyhow. We are the beneficiaries of dozens of quick judgments of the course of every week, to the degree that on the few occasions when we don't get that benefit, it feels as if we are wronged.
Privilege is a cocoon; it was wrapped around you before you could walk, and it insulates you and protects you from threats you never perceive. People who lack one or more of your privileges don't get that protection. That's why the notion of reverse racism is so flawed; no matter how any individual treats you, they do not get protected by the same cocoon you have been sheltered by your whole life.
Among whites, ivory skin can be mocked just like olive skin (although I've seen a lot more mocking of olive skin). Among minorities, lighter is almost always better.
Yes.
I tried looking for numbers, but failed. You can make an argument wither way, but they don't mean much without data. Random people seem to have different opinions.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100912191053AA1sPYa
Since I had nothing to offer, I offered nothing. Do you have anything to offer of the subject, besides a question and a snide remark? Did you want to discuss/debate hypotheticals?
Hmm, I wonder if there are any studies on that. The social trend seems to be pointing towards middle skin tones. From what I have seen in my personal experiences at least. I've seen much more mocking of pale skin tones over olive ones. By far.
I don't know if there are studies. My experience is anecdotal.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Depends what one would consider 'olive'-- could your typical Middle-Eastern dude be classified as olive? Compare that discrimination to pale.
As is mine.
I would imagine that there has to be some study somewhere where a bunch of white people where tested on their preferences for skin tones on white people. If they prefer pale or tanned tones.
Thena bunch of black people tested on if they prefer very dark skin tones or lighter skin tones on black people. Then cross testing. Perhaps the increasing # of inter racial marriages and biracial children is contributing to this.
No. Was that snide? What's wrong with asking questions?
That's what I was thinking (I tend to lump Sicilian-Greek-Turkish-Iraqi-Iranian as being olive-skinned, which is probably wrong).
Well are we talking that skin tone on a person of european descent or a person of middle eastern descent? I wouldn't be surprised at some difference in over all reaction. I see that playing into more than just skin tones.
I would consider that over all tone as olive yes.
I didn't quote a question.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Still haven't removed all the variables to determine if the individual was aggrieved solely because of skin tone.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Once again, it becomes an issue of socioeconomic pressure. 500 years it was preferably to be the lightest of skin tones. The royalty/aristocrats of the day were tremendously pale while the low class workers were darker in tone. They had to work in the fields all day under the sun, while the royals kept themselves under shade. Thus, that was the ideal.
That dynamic doesn't exist today, so cultural preferences change.
Very interesting and not something I had ever thought about. Makes sense as those in the shade had the power.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Must you always crop a quote to frame an argument you would like to have? I am not interested in tallying essays with you. Are you going to address the larger theme of my post?