Hahaha. I have to admit that I enjoy the insanity you espouse.
So let me get this straight "no homo" is offensive
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
Hahaha. I have to admit that I enjoy the insanity you espouse.
I think it will vary from person to person. Some will be offended and some will find it funny.
If nobody minds, I'm going to take this post out and fertilize my lawn with it.
I can think of a few different ways you guys might have meant your dismissal.
1) You don't think there is a separation. This would imply that you reject or dismiss the testimony of millions of black people, such as my family, because your lily white selves don't actually see it. This makes you out to be arrogant jerks.
or
2) You don't think the separation is primarily at the instigation of white people. That would reject not only the testimony of individuals, but also of a variety of experiments conducted over decades, because you know the real score. Again, this makes you look like arrogant jerks.
or
3) You acknowledge the separation and agree with the primary source, but think that if only the victims of this separation would behave in the way you approve of, instead of handling it the way you are so sure you would, their experiences would be better. That you think you know how to respond best to a victimization you have never experienced would once again make you look like arrogant jerks.
Now, I'm know my imagination has limits. There could well be some explanation for your bald, substance-less dismissals that doesn't make you out to be arrogant jerks. If you have one, please share it.
Or the simple fact that the people who have embraced that term as a description for themselves are indeed reinforcing that divide.
You are the one who wants to get into victim blaming and all that other nonsense. Notice I never claimed they created that divide.
You are the one who wants to get into victim blaming and all that other nonsense. Notice I never claimed they created that divide.
See, this is what I meant by assuming that things would be better if only the victims would behave in the way you think best, because even though you have not experienced that discrimination, you are saying you know a better way to react to it. That is seems to be a reaction that makes you more comfortable is, no doubt, completely coincidental.
I take exception to that. My stance by no means solves the problems as there are other things that can be done to solve it. But if you want to be naive enough to accept that them seperating themselves in that way doe snot reinforce that divide then by all means be naive.
As for the last two sentences, well I think Bronco could use more fertilizer.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
While we're all being political correct here...
What was Stephen A Smith's fine for saying the N-word on national TV? Where was his public apology?
Oh wait, he denied it, never apologized for it, and was never fined or suspended for it.
Perhaps Roy Hibbert should have just denied it saying that he said "something else really fast that sounded like "no homo.""
What was Stephen A Smith's fine for saying the N-word on national TV? Where was his public apology?
Oh wait, he denied it, never apologized for it, and was never fined or suspended for it.
Perhaps Roy Hibbert should have just denied it saying that he said "something else really fast that sounded like "no homo.""
Nowhere in here did you explain how choosing something divisive -- while it might be the best choice for the individual -- "works against the divide". You have to understand that your attitude very much comes across as "look, you're the one at fault, which gives me carte blanche to do whatever I want, and if it ends up making the overall relationship between us worse then tough luck -- it's up to YOU to fix it."
Case in point: this thread. I suspect that you feel that your efforts are an attempt to "work against the divide". If I might offer my observation, as well-intentioned as you might be, your approach and language generally serves to widen said divide.
The notion that, by referring to themselves as "African Americans", they are separating themselves puts the cart before the horse. They are being separated. Stating that the separation exists, and naming it, is a reaction, not a cause. To say it is a cause is victim-blaming.
Honestly, you're trying to argue both ways, here, AFAICT. If rejecting the self-chosen name "by no means solves the problems", then using the name not contributing to the problems. If accepting the name is adding to the problem, dumping it is a step to solving the problem.
Perhaps I am too confrontational. Perhaps someone else could do this better, maybe even you. However, I'm all I've got.
There's an interesting parallel going on in the atheist community. For years, women felt they were being overlooked as speakers, diminished to sexual objects, etc., while atheism was being run by white men. They would even talk about it sometimes, but felt no one in power was really listening. Then, a little over two years ago, a lady named Watson made a short video about how not to proposition women at conferences (in an elevator, while you're drunk, having mad no conversation at all previously), a second woman commented that Watson had over-reacted, and Watson responded at a public event attended both women that she had not over-reacted. Suddenly, stuff began flying all over the place. Something that came out quickly was Atheism+, a move to incorporate humanism and social justice into the culture(s) of atheism and skepticism. The people who oppose this position (often called pitters, because on of the primary hangouts is titled the Slymepit, and I don't know of an non-ironic name) accuse the feminists of creating a big rift in movement atheism, the feminists respond that they are just pointing out and uncovering a rift that had been there all along.
So, I'm not so sure I'm widening a divide. I see it as more that the divide was covered over in cardboard and duct tape. Sure, as long as you don't send over too many people, and no person has too much weight, people can cross it. I want to build a stronger bridge. To do that, you have to get people to understand that 1) the divide really is that wide, and 2) we're going to have to take down the cardboard, and see the divide, before we can bridge it. I don't think Stoked and I, or Bronco70 and I, are any further apart in our opinions on social justice issues than we were three or four years ago. The division is just clearer now.
If I didn't think I had any responsibility to help fix things (to the degree that message board discussions fix anything), I would just post insults and leave it at that. However, I won't deny that's how my attitude comes across. I think part of that stems from the power dynamic involved. Privilege is like white noise; you don't realize you have it until someone is trying to remove it, and then you don't want to lose it. Our society works very well for white people as opposed to blacks, but in small, frequent ways that are hard to see when you are white. In any imbalance based on differential power, the primary effort will need to come from the individuals with relatively more power. Not because they are bad people, not because they are evil, but because they are the beneficiaries and have the power.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....when did this happen? I don't remember him using the N word on national t.v. Maybe he was just quoting one of those 1,000's of rap songs created by the hip hoppers that use the word profusely!??
****ing stereotypes. My skin is more blotchy and blemished.
I remember watching Rocky 2 and being super jealous of how smooth and rich Apollo Creed's skin was.
First paragraph is more of the same from you. It ocntributes to the problem therefore it is part of the horse. It is a cause and if you choose to deny that then that is fine. But I deny your title of victim blamer. It is rubish.
Now for the second paragraph that I feel has some merit. As far as the "by no means solves the problem" I meant it does not solve it by itself. There is no silver bullet for the divides in America. If they choose to identify themselves that way that is fine. They have every right. But it reinforces the distinction between us.
Me personally, I think there is not true difference between me and anyone else. Skin tone, sex, religious affiliation, political party or any other method of distinction is irrelevant. I am not better and no worse than any other average American. Suddenly I have someone telling me I have to refer to them by a seperate title due to their skin tone? Rubish. All that will do is create hard feelings where they did not exist before. For example look at the Repub. v. Dem hate simply becasue they are Repub. or Dems.. Idiotic.
Exactly. But society at large does not want to dump the name. They want us all to embrace it. They do this by the abomination call Political Correctness. If we can continue to be divided then the problems as a result of that divide will always exist. Is that the sole reason for the divide? Of course not but it adds to the problem.
I see what you did there. A clever counter-punch to my use of "carte blanche".
Not to archie this thread, but does anyone else think perhaps One Brow has a new keyboard? Try as I might, I'm not able to find any typos in his last few posts.
Congrats, OB!
Please let me know if I've made an erroneous assumption, OK?
Anyhow, what I find offensive about the phrase "no homo" is that by using it, the speaker is making an assumption about what he thinks I am thinking, and making an assumption that I even care about his sexual orientation. It's rather insulting to the audience's intelligence when a speaker feels he must add that disclaimer to a statement.
Let's just get this straight - who cares?
oh heck, I'm not even sure what I just said.
No bozo.
Congrats, OB!
Please let me know if I've made an erroneous assumption, OK?
Anyhow, what I find offensive about the phrase "no homo" is that by using it, the speaker is making an assumption about what he thinks I am thinking, and making an assumption that I even care about his sexual orientation. It's rather insulting to the audience's intelligence when a speaker feels he must add that disclaimer to a statement.
Let's just get this straight - who cares?
oh heck, I'm not even sure what I just said.
No bozo.
MoreFeasts
Member
I don't think that people are getting the context of "no homo". It is used to call attention to one's own metro-sexuality, no?
Seems to me, that it is commonly used as a means of breaking down the walls between the hetero and non-hetero communities, which is the opposite of the way people are taking it here, is it not? or not, I don't know, I'm just looking at a few things I see on the internet, I don't talk to people who actually use the phrase, but this is my impression. We really don't have any yutes here to educate us on current slang?
Seems to me, that it is commonly used as a means of breaking down the walls between the hetero and non-hetero communities, which is the opposite of the way people are taking it here, is it not? or not, I don't know, I'm just looking at a few things I see on the internet, I don't talk to people who actually use the phrase, but this is my impression. We really don't have any yutes here to educate us on current slang?
UGLI baby
Well-Known Member
Umm wtf are you talking about?
Its like saying "thats what she said" only "thats what she said" is Never ever ever ever funny. Ever. "No Homo" is almost always hilarious.
posted from my htc one using tapaBONGO