...because your lily white selves don't actually see it.
****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.
...because your lily white selves don't actually see it.
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.
...Privilege is like white noise...
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.
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?
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.
Suddenly I have someone telling me I have to refer to them by a seperate title due to their skin tone? Rubish.
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!
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.
It is used to call attention to one's own metro-sexuality, no?