OT: Is It Racist?
- Thread starter Spacegrass
- Start date
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
I prefer the back and forths to end like this. Good stuff by both of you.
Yeah, that's it. The same people who rant about how everyone is offended and making a huge deal out of nothing are often the same people who go on to claim THIS is the reason the entire society is falling apart, like that's not doing the exact same thing.
I may be wrong but I always thought that when people used the term “cotton picking” like in the term” out of your cotton picking mind” it was them using an alternate word to GD.
My parent NEVER EVER took the lords name in vein but used the term cotton picking a lot.
My parent NEVER EVER took the lords name in vein but used the term cotton picking a lot.
this is exactly what i've thought every time i've heard the phrase. I'm born and raised in Ohio, not exactly the south, and i've heard it for years. never thought about it being racist at all, must be my white privilege. I should have checked it.
See, to me this is as dramatic as some of the people from the other side who get upset about decorative cotton plants in a Walmart or whatever that was.
Political Correctness is a term "used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race."
Being aware of how our words and actions can be insulting to someone, even when we did not know it, and particularly in regards to groups that are marginalized or discriminated against, is not "the first phase of destroying the first amendment," which is about government not taking away our freedom of speech, not private business or individuals anyway.
I've never seen any white liberals say that other people cannot do things on their own. Not one. And I know a lot of white liberals.
The South is known for goofy quips and sayings? Lots of areas in the country have goofy quips and sayings. Country folks out in the mid-west, Cali people, people around the Great Lakes... I can hardly understand some folks from New England. One difference is that the South happens to have a bunch of sayings that have roots in race and how the races interact, because of the history of the area and the people in it, so more of those might get called out more than a New Englander talking about a "banging a uey" or a farmer in Indiana saying someone "has a holler tail" or a California person saying "Dude, that's 909 as hell."
That post was over-dramatic. Just as there are over dramatic people on the left, there are as least as many over dramatic people on the right.
I honestly don't know what any of those are. lol But I will use holler tail just b/c it sounds funny. Dayyyuuumm, look at the holler tail on that one!!! (did I do it right/)
During the winter months it wasn't uncommon for the family milk cow to come down with a case of what the old timers called "holler tail." The poor cow would get down and couldn't get back up. The "home remedy" for this malady was to split the cow's tail and pour salt in it. It usually worked. The cow was suddenly motivated .
What the hell is wrong with old timers!!!! The cow was probably tired and cold and didn't want to move----welp, cut his tail in half and put salt in it!!!! GD honky rednecks
Honestly, yes....
Honestly, yes.
This a great example of how liberals are just confused. Minorities dont view themselves the way you view them. You're distorted misconception of what they have and what you think they want is the problem. They want to be left the f*** alone and dont want a clueless group of white liberals telling them how to think and feel.
Honestly, yes.
This a great example of how liberals are just confused. Minorities dont view themselves the way you view them. You're distorted misconception of what they have and what you think they want is the problem. They want to be left the f*** alone and dont want a clueless group of white liberals telling them how to think and feel.
nope but his constant crying wolf sure made people not believe him when a real wolf appeared
just like when some people want to bend and twist everything into a race issue
it numbs people to real issues, just like the boy that cried wolf did
That was pretty amazing. I would have felt silly as hell asking those questions to those people. People pick up and run with talking points from Facebook to make themselves look like they are sooooooo pro social issues that they don't even think about how stupid and offensive the crap actually is. I like a lot of the reactions from those questions and in particular the most common description of being ignorant. In my opinion it does sound racist to assume anyone would be too dumb to use the internet or have something as simple as ID. Its like a blanket statement that says they are too stupid to function as we do and since we operate on such a higher plane of being informed, they need our assistance!!!!!!! I wish we could put all those interviewed in a room together---i guarantee it would take 5 minutes before the people in the first part of the video stopped saying that sh*t forever.
Honestly that is so racist it's comical. Like it was meant to be a Chappelle Show Skit.
Are you aware of the irony in your post? You just assumed a ton of stuff about 2 different groups in an attempt to shame one of them for assuming things about the other.
The problem w/ that is that we know the little boy's motive. It's a story. And the law of averages says there are real life people that story fits to a tee. It's anecdotal, though. We don't actually know the inner workings of actual real people, especially on so complicated an issue. Assuming they are just making it up and that they don't believe what they're saying at all is just like calling everyone who votes Republican a racist.
lol
I just realized this was Ami Horowitz.
Look, I think Michael Moore and Rachel Maddow would be cool to hang out with, but I'm not going to go around quoting anything they say b/c their objectivity is completely compromised. We know what their conclusion is going to be before they backfill with "evidence." You don't go around repeating things like that unless all you're looking for is cheering from people inside your own echo chamber.
I thought the royal we were having a pretty decent dialogue here. I thought at least some of the people liking your regurgitated propaganda thought so, too...
Every thread has that one comment where it just alarms you that there are people out there who think that way.
This is that comment.
Yeah, that wasn't the point. I'd go on a camping trip with both of them before I'd cite anything they say as clobber points in a hostile debate.
How do you personally separate actual motives and anecdotes? Like.....is it wrong to say, that guy is an idiot bc of his stance bc it’s idiotic to the mass population....even if he really believes it to be true? Just bc you might truly feel a certain way, doesn’t make it a truth—-even if your brain believes it to be true. I know it’s a slippery slope on being able to determine absolute truth..... but where can you draw the line on direct stupidity and actual reality. I honesty thought you would support the purpose behind that video. I know nothing about that guy that created the video, but I do know how annoying people like b Shapiro and m Moore can be with super organized agendas. But if you can step back from political beliefs and even though I’m guessing the responses are certainly cherry picked......there is some general credence to the message in that clip about actual reality. I feel like people try to stick to their assumed sides instead of actually agreeing and disagreeing on basic principle. Also....anybody that lives and dies on todays politics has to live in misery. Nobody should enjoy modern day politics. It’s devoid of common sense, rational/critical
Thinking, and general person to person respect.
I agree w/ a lot of this.
In no particular order...
Horowitz is just like Moore, O'Keefe, etc. If their cherry-picking and spin has a point b/c it has some application, they've ruined it by skewing perception on how widespread or representative it is, and we should resist their point as a means of containing it or reining it in.
I think addressing the position or the incident w/o assuming motives is the wisest approach. For example, instead of saying a person is racist, address their action. In this exact case, the OKC announcer isn't an inherently evil bad racist person; he said something that was at the very least problematic. (I've been in the South since the age of 7 and don't remember a time when I was unaware of "cotton-pickin'," and this may be the first time I've ever considered any racist undertones to the saying.) I don't think anyone is trying to get him fired and banished to Racist Island (Majorca), but the clear, compassionate, empathetic result should be that he avoids the phrase in the future.
It's not about being "politically correct" as conservatives so often frame it; it's no different than not saying a team got "raped" in front of someone you know is a survivor of sexual assault. Human decency ought to make us voluntarily choose our words carefully, and if we accidentally hurt someone, we should seek to avoid that, not dig in our heels over the technical right to it.
The worth I see in Horowitz's video would be to address someone or warn someone about falling into that trope. The wrong way to use it is to broadbrush an entire political perspective or to assume it as absolute regarding the person in front of you.
Last edited:
I understand that there are trick questions asked to certain groups in order to make that group look stupid and/or hypocritical on both sides. These videos are edited and cut down to make it seem that everyone they ask has the same ridiculous answer. But I still get a kick out of them because people have ridiculous points of view. I don't know who that guy is, so I can't speak on his objectivity. But what I saw, (albeit a cherry picked example) was some absolutely ridiculous thoughts from people who have no clue what they are taking about. I would like to think that the vast majority doesn't think like that, but unfortunately this is how their generation is trained to think.
Nothing wrong w/ getting a kick out of them. That's different from entering them into the record as some kind of proof applied beyond their context.
You would like to think that's not representative... but... wait for it... this IS how an entire generation is trained to think? I have worked quite a bit with "training the next couple generations how to think," and how I would categorize it is teaching them -- not training them -- to use critical thinking skills, have healthy skepticism, to check sources, identify fallacies and propaganda, apply logic, and ultimately, to think for themselves. They're not taught what to think (by and large), but teaching people to think independently is always, always, ALWAYS going to increase the likelihood that they are questioning the status quo. That's true whether we're talking about liberals questioning supremacist culture and privilege or conservatives questioning media bias and whether diplomatic language obscures truth.
Maybe trained to think was an unfair way of putting it. But it is definitely the way some media outlets and professors want them to think.
I would distinguish between teaching them how to think and persuading them what to think. Media and education are left-leaning professions and have really convenient platforms for being heard. Educators and true journalists should be careful not to abuse their positions and to keep a clear line between their role and their personal positions. That's not to say they have to hide the latter, or that there isn't room for it in its place, but it's a tricky thing to navigate and they should approach it w/ caution. If a student writes a persuasive essay advocating for a conservative pov, for example, the liberal teacher's job is to help the student make their point more effectively, not debate them. That may include challenging them on something illogical, but there's a fine line. And they'd be doing liberal students a disservice if they approved of those students' writing strictly b/c they personally agree w/ their opinions, rather than challenging them to up their game, too.
To be honest, I've heard that phrase a lot (relatively speaking) and I suppose knew it said 'cotton picking' but never truly realized it or paid attention to it I guess? So until this happened I haven't even considered it because I didn't even realize what it said. I knew what it said but didn't realize it if that makes sense? I am often unaware of a lot that goes on like that. Very simple things that normal people pay attention to or are aware of are often lost on me, even solutions to simple issues. It's pretty frustrating.
I think certain videos will be more pertinent to you if you have similar people like this in your life......and if you are like me, it has little to do with your politics. Its the ignorance behind people's views that they stand behind with full force. I don't know the term for it, but its happening with all sides of politics where people
Honestly don’t see a problem with this approach. Kids are strongly influenced by parents and social media. It’s craxy how many 15-25 yr olds have crazy political opinions bc it’s everywhere now. I think both sides—liberal/conservative (honestly those terms have almost zero accurate meaning these days). People latch on to talking points bc it’s the it thing and talk about it in absolutes. Leaves very little room for compromise. You have gun rights people who refuse to even partake in discussion bc it starts and stops “over my dead body”. You have social justice warriors using violence and rioting to prove a point and show no room for actual discussion that doesn’t involve meeting all their demands. People like to hate the opposition more than they want progress. Two smart people in a room together could get more done than a arena full of Congress.
Ah, thanks for your valuable and thoughtful contribution to the conversation.
If the intent was not racist, then there should be no backlash. Words don't have meaning, they have usages.
Colloquially, I doubt many people even make the connection. I wouldn't apologize for a not being a racists.
