Another milestone in SMH history....

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

That's not a meaningful statement, since people won't agree on how it's defined.

I can define what I like to hear as what everybody ought to say, and what I don't want to hear as just what other people want to say but ought not say. And you can define it the same way just replace my preference with yours. How would that help anybody?

It's kind of like how the golden rule doesn't work, because not everybody wants to be treated the same way.

If you want to specifically define "...what you ought to say vs what you want to say" or "what constitutes the golden rule," then you are correct in that the definition varies from individual to individual. However, in general terms, offering up the advise of "saying what you ought" or "follow the golden rule" is not meaningless. It is still good advice for an individual. Perhaps not every individual, I'll grant.

I mean, reminding somebody, "Hey, you know you shouldn't just blurt out whatever you're thinking. Maybe think about a tactful way to respond or maybe even say nothing at al," can be good advice. So, too, can reminding someone to "follow the golden rule." Haven't most of us observed or had heated moments where we've reminded children, buddies, or ourselves of the golden rule?

We don't have to have agreement on how these statements/rules are defined in order for them to be meaningful.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The problem here isn't about liking the value of a bygone era. The problem here is to insult the value of others. The insult is probably not intentional, therefore I call it ignorance.

So, to be clear, you think that it is ignorance if a person - most-likely an older-generation one - longs for the days when crew-cuts, please, thank you's, yes sirs, yes ma'ams, firm handshakes, skirts below the knee, etc., were the norm?

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Dreadlocks have been formal hair style for a long long long time, way before the "bygone era" you are referring to ever existed. And it's not just some tribal stuff, but gods and warriors in many cultures, including ancient Europe.

No argument. Generally speaking, same with other forms of long hair on men, and beards. That doesn't mean that if one has the opinion that long hair and beads are uncouth, that the opinion-holder is ignorant, or even racist. It's just a personal preference. Albeit a bit of an extreme one. And one that - if following the golden rule - is best left unsaid, dpeending upon the audience. (So maybe I'm agreeing that saying it in certain circumstances would make the speaker ignorant of social graces or classy behavior.)

Originally Posted by Skipaway

A key reason many modern black Americans like this hairstyle is exactly because they want to have their own styles different representing different culture. To insult that look is racist, and to not know that's insulting is ignorant.

I don't agree with the last sentence. I, for one, think many of the beards on today's baseball players are absolutely ridiculous looking. By your definition above, that's insulting to those who wear them. By my definition, it's personal opinion. Now if, when, and how I choose to vocalize that opinion might in fact make me ignorant or rude, I'll grant you.

[knightdreamer2k]

As a POC, I think the sentiments in the letter mirror racist overtones. The question many people have is if the person is racist. How do you know that someone is racist? In my experience I have never met a racist who admitted they were racist.

I also disagree that someone who is racist can't say something positive about said race they are insulting. If that was the case there would not be so many racist football fans. Not to pick on the SEC, but do you think all those fans cheering for their teams want the black athletes to fail?

I am glad that the discussion on this though, is discussed in a mature matter, with each person bringing there own perspective to the conversation. I wish political debates were like this. Maybe one day this is what it might look like.

[monkeyman576]

People are free to say whatever they want that is not libel/slander. Weather or not they should say it is a matter of personal opinion. Either way, you can't and should not expect someone not to say something they believe that is not libel/slander. Free country and such.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by thehef

So, to be clear, you think that it is ignorance if a person - most-likely an older-generation one - longs for the days when crew-cuts, please, thank you's, yes sirs, yes ma'ams, firm handshakes, skirts below the knee, etc., were the norm?

No argument. Generally speaking, same with other forms of long hair on men, and beards. That doesn't mean that if one has the opinion that long hair and beads are uncouth, that the opinion-holder is ignorant, or even racist. It's just a personal preference. Albeit a bit of an extreme one. And one that - if following the golden rule - is best left unsaid, dpeending upon the audience. (So maybe I'm agreeing that saying it in certain circumstances would make the speaker ignorant of social graces or classy behavior.)


I don't agree with the last sentence. I, for one, think many of the beards on today's baseball players are absolutely ridiculous looking. By your definition above, that's insulting to those who wear them. By my definition, it's personal opinion. Now if, when, and how I choose to vocalize that opinion might in fact make me ignorant or rude, I'll grant you.

It's OK for a hamburger lover to insist that hamburgers are the best and people should all eat hamburgers, but it'd be racist to tell a Mexican that tacos are disgusting.

I'd be OK with a letter recommending the player to dress and behave the certain way, but the part insulting other ways are obviously racist.

It's perfectly OK for you to think some looks are ridiculous. It's OK to say things like, "Tacos disgust me personally, and my personal taste just can't stand it." It's not OK to then insist others can't eat taco because it disgust you. The former is personal feeling, and the latter is racist.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

It's OK for a hamburger lover to insist that hamburgers are the best and people should all eat hamburgers, but it'd be racist to tell a Mexican that tacos are disgusting.

I'd be OK with a letter recommending the player to dress and behave the certain way, but the part insulting other ways are obviously racist.

It's perfectly OK for you to think some looks are ridiculous. It's OK to say things like, "Tacos disgust me personally, and my personal taste just can't stand it." It's not OK to then insist others can't eat taco because it disgust you. The former is personal feeling, and the latter is racist.

You can insist it all you want, doesn't mean it will happen and it's not racist.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

You can insist it all you want, doesn't mean it will happen and it's not racist.

It indeed happens all the time and done by ignorant people. If you know about it and still insist it's not racism so you can give yourself an excuse to do that, then you are a racist.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

It indeed happens all the time and done by ignorant people. If you know about it and still insist it's not racism so you can give yourself an excuse to do that, then you are a racist.

Glad you are the racism police. There is a difference between being ignorant and racist. Not liking tacos, weather said in an insensitive manner or not is neither ignorant nor racist.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Glad you are the racism police. There is a difference between being ignorant and racist. Not liking tacos, weather said in an insensitive manner or not is neither ignorant nor racist.

I think you may have misunderstood me. Not liking taco isn't racist at all. Telling people it's disgusting for them to eat tacos is racist.

That's what's happening here. The letter started out fine urging the player to follow some kind of dress code, but it went all racist when it started talking about how different looks are disgusting.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think you may have misunderstood me. Not liking taco isn't racist at all. Telling people it's disgusting for them to eat tacos is racist.

That's what's happening here. The letter started out fine urging the player to follow some kind of dress code, but it went all racist when it started talking about how different looks are disgusting.

I personally don't find it racist because if it was someone of a different race with the same characteristics they would have likely said the same thing. That's like saying someone is not allowed to wear gang related clothing into a high scale restaurant is racist.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

I personally don't find it racist because if it was someone of a different race with the same characteristics they would have likely said the same thing.

That can still be racist, of course.

"You listen to their music?"
"You eat that food?"

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

That can still be racist, of course.

"You listen to their music?"
"You eat that food?"

It can be, but it also cannot be. You can't just blanketly say anyone who has an low opinion of a style is racist. They may be racist, but it is on a case by case basis, not purely based on the opinion of style/food etc.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

It can be, but it also cannot be.

Right.
That's what "can be" racist means. And why I said "can be" instead of "is".

You can't just blanketly say anyone who has an low opinion of a style is racist.

I think we also need to differentiate between people *being* racist and people *doing* or *saying* things that are racist.


But, now since we've agreed that saying "I don't like that disgusting hair" *can* be racist...
How do you feel about this statement that you just made?

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

I personally don't find it racist because if it was someone of a different race with the same characteristics they would have likely said the same thing.

A person *can* say the same thing about a person of a different race and it *can* be racist.

So, if you don't think it was racist to say so, why don't you?
Or, do you now think it was racist?

That's like saying someone is not allowed to wear gang related clothing into a high scale restaurant is racist.

How about saying you can't wear your pants below your waist while on the street?

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Right.
That's what "can be" racist means. And why I said "can be" instead of "is".



I think we also need to differentiate between people *being* racist and people *doing* or *saying* things that are racist.


But, now since we've agreed that saying "I don't like that disgusting hair" *can* be racist...
How do you feel about this statement that you just made?

A person *can* say the same thing about a person of a different race and it *can* be racist.

So, if you don't think it was racist to say so, why don't you?
Or, do you now think it was racist?



How about saying you can't wear your pants below your waist while on the street?

The person is what's racist, not what they say. I see plenty of people of lots of different races(including white) wear pants at different levels so it's not racist to be against it in my opinion.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

That's like saying someone is not allowed to wear gang related clothing into a high scale restaurant is racist.

You do know old school high scale restaurants are full of people who wear gang-related clothing, right? People like to dress like mafia bosses in those restaurants. Formal western clothing is the choice of dress code for a lot of gangs around the world.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Telling people it's disgusting for them to eat tacos is racist.

I know of a vegan or two who thinks it's disgusting for us to eat meat. Are they racist?

Of course, if a person is telling only Mexicans that eating tacos is disgusting, then that's a different story. (You may infer that the letter-writer is targeting blacks for his criticism of tats, dreads, and endzone dances, but we don't know that; he may also be speaking/writing to anyone on the Nittany Lions who fits those descriptions.)

I'll just re-state that in the case of the letter-writer, he may very well be racist. I'm just saying that a) we don't know enough about him from this particular letter to conclude that he's racist; his feelings on tats & dreads and endzone displays may come from something else that is neither racist nor ignorant, and b) the quick judgement of some to pronounce him a racist is indicative of current culture - reflected in this thread - that is way to quick, perhaps eager, to pronounce racism as the motive for... whatever; and, sadly, that phenomenon cheapens actual racist actions that actually effect/harm people.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by thehef

I know of a vegan or two who thinks it's disgusting for us to eat meat. Are they racist?

That's not racist because veganism isn't related to race and isn't really a full culture. It's still have the same problem though and that's why veganism are often viewed negatively by people who don't practice that.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

You do know old school high scale restaurants are full of people who wear gang-related clothing, right? People like to dress like mafia bosses in those restaurants. Formal western clothing is the choice of dress code for a lot of gangs around the world.

Of course I meant low end gang related, not high end gang related.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by thehef

I'll just re-state that in the case of the letter-writer, he may very well be racist. I'm just saying that a) we don't know enough about him from this particular letter to conclude that he's racist; his feelings on tats & dreads and endzone displays may come from something else that is neither racist nor ignorant, and b) the quick judgement of some to pronounce him a racist is indicative of current culture - reflected in this thread - that is way to quick, perhaps eager, to pronounce racism as the motive for... whatever; and, sadly, that phenomenon cheapens actual racist actions that actually effect/harm people.

Racism isn't determined by motivation. The fact that I call it "racism by ignorance" already means it's not intentional and the motivation isn't to discriminate.

I am specifically stating that people can have racist acts unintentionally. This happens all the time, and the reason we need to point it out is because racism hurts regardless of motivation. There is no cheapening of the hurt by saying that. On the other hand, if we require proof of motivation to label something racism, you are effectively telling racists to stay racist as long as they pretend they aren't doing anything intentionally. You are basically tolerating harmful behaviors.


We punish unintentional harm much less severely comparing to intentional harm, but we punish that still.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Of course I meant low end gang related, not high end gang related.

And you determine what's high end by your culture prejudice? You mean you are a racist?