Race-relations Issues - Page 6 - TennisForum.com
 1995Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #76 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 25th, 2017, 02:44 AM
Senior Member
 
postblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 659
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
But where is the challenge?

You have not explained how I was privileged.

Nor how you know how seamlessly I fit into society, if at all. It so happens I am now in Canada, because I did not fit into society even a little bit and wanted out of it from an early age.

Nor how I should be sitting in NI in the 1950’s analyzing racism in the USA.

So I think your challenge is completely misguided. A result of PC having reached reached absurd levels in today’s society.
Uh huh, absolutely. Hope you are enjoying Canada and merry xmas!!!
TERRASTAR18 likes this.
postblue is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #77 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 25th, 2017, 03:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,154
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Bah Humbug!
buddyholly is offline  
post #78 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 25th, 2017, 01:41 PM
Senior Member
 
SERVivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,749
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by postblue View Post
First, thank you for a respectful reply. I appreciate it. So, here we go:



Here, you have pinpointed the fundamental difference between us and really highlighted my argument.

Morality is not decided by the population, morality is decided by who has power in the population. When I said conventionality is not morality, I was quoting Charlotte Bronte, a female writer who was being criticized for breaking tradition and writing about the female experience in her work. You would look back to her time and say "well, that's how culture was, the population defined morality like that" and that's not true: women are part of the population, their voices were not taken into account, and morality never reflected their voices, despite it being clear that they should also be able to write about it.



It's very important that you understand who I quoted and the context, because I quoted someone talking about her experience being in the losing end of society's power structure: you fail to ever see this argument from the oppressed perspective. Your 13 year old self never thought twice about watching the show because society told you it was ok, but you only knew that society thought it was ok because you fit into the society so seamlessly, you never had to think critically about your actions because being "you" and following society's course is the natural way to be. That is called privilege.

And I don't want to get hung up on watching the TV show scenario here, I am speaking broadly. In your question about forgiveness, once again, you put yourself at the center of the process. It's not up to me to forgive you for anything, it's not up to you to forgive yourself. It's about who was wronged in the situation, and those are the people who you always ignore in your calculus. As Bronte said again, self-righteousness is not religion, you can't use your own rationalization for why you "sinned" as absolution, you don't have that power, there were people who were affected and they need to come into the process.

It seems like you "understood" the minstrel show was wrong when you "moved out of the UK," but pay attention to what you wrote. It seems to me like what changed your view of the show was moving to a new place and following its moral code, which happened to be against shows like that, INSTEAD of understanding that it was ALWAYS wrong, because racism has ALWAYS been wrong, and people said it was wrong and they protested and if people in power (i.e. you) LISTENED and took what they said into account it would have been a very different situation.



Your example of beheading is not a good one, as it is a policy affecting the country as a whole. Now, women not being able to drive there for so long is a better example since it's the powerful (men) oppressing a particular group (women). As you said, "they would reply that it is morally correct in their culture," but like I explained above, you don't think critically about who "THEY" are. You accept the dominant voices that comprise THEY and ignore who they are shutting out.



Apples and oranges, or rather, humans and animals. I am talking about fundamentally human-human interactions.
Apparently, you were raised with a healthy dose of Howard Zinn.

fan of:



Mirjana Lucic-Baroni
Marta Domachowska
SERVivor is offline  
post #79 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 27th, 2017, 08:17 PM
country flag pov
Senior Member
 
pov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,941
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
But it is probably only a matter of time before some crusading SJW calls for the city of White Horse to change its name, which is too suggestive of white supremacy.
I gave a like to your post because I agree with most of the sentiments. However that there are those who think calling someone a warrior for social justice is an insult makes me chuckle. Though I guess if one sees social justice as a "bad" thing it makes sense. In your case it's even more a fail because I don't think the things you described have anything to do with social justice.

"These lifeforms feel such passionate hatreds over matters of custom, God concepts, even - strangely enough - economic systems." - Capt. J Piccard USS Enterprise

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
pov is offline  
post #80 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 28th, 2017, 01:36 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,154
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by pov View Post
I gave a like to your post because I agree with most of the sentiments. However that there are those who think calling someone a warrior for social justice is an insult makes me chuckle. Though I guess if one sees social justice as a "bad" thing it makes sense. In your case it's even more a fail because I don't think the things you described have anything to do with social justice.
It is not that one sees social justice as a bad thing.

But the three-word term “social justice warrior" is now defined as a perjorative for someone who is more interested in self-validation than the actual cause.

And I think it exactly fits someone who claims that "Jingle Bells" is a racist song.
And those that buy into that interpretation without an iota of evidence.

Or someone who wants to change the name of a street because the word "swastika" bothers them.

I think I first became aware of the phenomenon of SJWs when PETA started a petition to rename the town of FISHKILL, NY, because it was suggestive of violence towards fish. Such was the drive for self-validation that it seems that PETA did not even bother to check that ‘kill’ is a Dutch name for stream. Or care.

The mayor of FISHKILL said that the town would change its name when the Catskill Mountains were renamed the Catsave Mountains.

Then the SJWs went totally off the rails when an accountant in NY was fired because he wrote that circumstances dictated that the company budget for the upcoming year would, of necessity, be niggardly. It did not matter that the word was exactly the word needed. People who did not know the meaning of the word were offended.

Social media killed common sense. By that I mean, SJWs don’t actually do anything, they just tweet any old thing that comes into their head that gives them a sense of validation.
Slowman likes this.

Last edited by buddyholly; Dec 28th, 2017 at 01:51 AM.
buddyholly is offline  
post #81 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 29th, 2017, 05:51 PM
Senior Member
 
JaySix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,815
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues



In different circumstances there would be so much else to discuss when Rhian Brewster pulls up his seat for the first major interview of what promises to be a thrilling career. The young man – or boy, really – sitting here is not short of highlights when he looks back on 2017. He is a World Cup winner with England’s Under-17s, as well as being the owner of the golden boot trophy from the same tournament, and there will be plenty of other opportunities, almost certainly, in the future to talk about the star qualities that have established him as one of the rising young hopes of English football.

Yet we are here, on his request, because he wants to talk about his other experiences over the past year and go through a story, at the age of 17, that can make you despair. He is speaking with a courage that goes beyond his years and he hopes, in the process, that what he says can go all the way to the top of the sport – if, that is, the relevant people are willing to listen. And, frankly, he could probably be forgiven for having a few doubts.

Uefa, in particular, needs to pay attention because this is a cry for help and it all feels so desperately wrong that over the course of an hour a teenage footballer, still to make his professional debut, can recall seven occasions when he says he has been racially abused or witnessed the same happening to a team-mate. Five of the alleged incidents are from the past seven months. Two have been while playing for England and one occurred in the World Cup final when, amid all the golden memories of beating Spain’s Under-17s, Brewster says he can vividly remember one of his team-mates being called a “monkey” by an opposition player.

To speak out takes courage because it cannot be easy for any player, especially one of his age, to go through the more excruciating details. Yet it is also clear that Brewster has been thinking about going public for some time and, importantly, that he has a strong support network in place. Mike Gordon, Liverpool’s co-owner, has been personally involved, ringing Brewster several times to let him know he has the backing of the people at the top of the club. Jürgen Klopp, the manager, is aware of this interview and full of admiration for what the teenager is trying to do. Steven Gerrard, one of Brewster’s mentors at the club’s academy, is the same. Troy Townsend, Kick it Out’s education manager, is in regular contact and Alex Inglethorpe, Liverpool’s academy director, is here to offer his support, sitting in the next seat as Brewster explains why he feels compelled to speak out. Liverpool, very understandably, are proud of what their player is doing.

“I said to them that I wanted to do it,” Brewster explains. “They said I should speak to my parents before doing anything and see what my mum and dad think. My mum and dad are unnerved because this is not the first time. They’re angry and they don’t want it to keep happening. And they’re angry because nothing has been done about it.”


“I got fouled,” Brewster says. “I was on the floor and I had the ball in my hands. One of their players started saying stuff in Russian to the ref. I said: ‘It’s a foul, man, what you playing at?’ I was still sitting down at this stage. Then their player leaned over me, right down to my face and said: ‘Suck my dick, you ******, you negro.’

I didn’t even want to put in a complaint [after the Spartak game]. I was walking down the tunnel swearing: ‘Fuck the system, it’s not going to do anything.' Obviously you have to [make a complaint]. But if something is ever done about it, that’s another story
“I jumped to my feet and the ref came running over because obviously he realised something had been said. He [the referee] said to me he couldn’t do anything because he hadn’t heard it and ‘the only thing I can do is report it’. I said: ‘Come on, then – let’s go and report it.’ He started doing something else and I said: ‘No, now.’ We went over to the fourth official and told him. I told Steven [Gerrard] what had happened and we made a complaint there.”

It is jarring, to say the least, to hear the words that were allegedly used. But this, Brewster says, is only the latest in a long line of incidents where he has been targeted this year, starting with England’s encounter against Ukraine during the European Under-17 Championship in Croatia in May.

England won that game 4-0, with Brewster scoring the second goal. Yet the striker also angered one of the Ukraine players after chasing a ball into the penalty area and colliding with the goalkeeper. “I didn’t mean to hurt the goalkeeper and I said sorry – just left it there. But then there was an incident [with the same outfield player] later in the match. It was a bad challenge and I pushed him. We got into an argument and he called me a ******.”

The Football Association lodged an official complaint but Uefa, with no video footage, concluded there was not enough evidence for disciplinary action. Nobody, however, has ever informed Brewster of that decision. To the teenager, it feels like the case “disappeared”.

continues here:
https://www.theguardian.com/football...e-england-uefa

WTA players that have brought me the most joy: Belinda Bencic Martina Hingis Serena Williams Naochi Aļona Ostapenko Дарья Касаткина Lucie Šafářová

Un giorno capiremo chi siamo
senza dire niente
e sembrerà normale
JaySix is offline  
post #82 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 30th, 2017, 04:19 PM
country flag pov
Senior Member
 
pov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,941
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
It is not that one sees social justice as a bad thing.

But the three-word term “social justice warrior" is now defined as a perjorative for someone who is more interested in self-validation than the actual cause.

And I think it exactly fits someone who claims that "Jingle Bells" is a racist song.
And those that buy into that interpretation without an iota of evidence.

Or someone who wants to change the name of a street because the word "swastika" bothers them.

I think I first became aware of the phenomenon of SJWs when PETA started a petition to rename the town of FISHKILL, NY, because it was suggestive of violence towards fish. Such was the drive for self-validation that it seems that PETA did not even bother to check that ‘kill’ is a Dutch name for stream. Or care.

The mayor of FISHKILL said that the town would change its name when the Catskill Mountains were renamed the Catsave Mountains.

Then the SJWs went totally off the rails when an accountant in NY was fired because he wrote that circumstances dictated that the company budget for the upcoming year would, of necessity, be niggardly. It did not matter that the word was exactly the word needed. People who did not know the meaning of the word were offended.

Social media killed common sense. By that I mean, SJWs don’t actually do anything, they just tweet any old thing that comes into their head that gives them a sense of validation.
It is not defined that way. It is often used that way. Mostly by those who have no real interest in social justice.

It's possible that the writer of Jingle Bells did have a racist angle in mind but since the lyrics themselves don't suggest that, it is IMO irrelevant at this point.

Though I've posted on a thread on "taking back the swastika" it's foolish to not see why some people would be bothered by the term.

The Fishkill thing is hilarious. Even if it did mean killing fish.

Again the point is that in using a pro social justice term as an insult is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. I do speak of a "culture of outrage" which feeds, and is fed by, social media. Hmmm ... maybe I could go with Social Media Warrior.

"These lifeforms feel such passionate hatreds over matters of custom, God concepts, even - strangely enough - economic systems." - Capt. J Piccard USS Enterprise

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
pov is offline  
post #83 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 30th, 2017, 10:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,154
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by pov View Post
It is not defined that way. It is often used that way. Mostly by those who have no real interest in social justice.

.
I’ll take a dictionary definition over your definition any day.
buddyholly is offline  
post #84 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 31st, 2017, 04:15 AM
JN
Senior Member
 
JN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicity, mayne
Posts: 37,253
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
It is not that one sees social justice as a bad thing.

But the three-word term “social justice warrior" is now defined as a perjorative for someone who is more interested in self-validation than the actual cause.

-snip-
So anyone who speaks on social justice is now no more than a glory-seeker because of how some choose to define it?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
hablo likes this.

chanda · venus (7) · serena (23) · ana (1) · vera · na (2) · domi

Obama Derangement Syndrome is one of many Scourges Destroying Society.
Have pity for and hug the tormented, today.

Last edited by JN; Dec 31st, 2017 at 04:28 AM.
JN is offline  
post #85 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 31st, 2017, 11:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,154
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by JN View Post
So anyone who speaks on social justice is now no more than a glory-seeker because of how some choose to define it?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
Ummmmm, no!

Nobody ever said that. It is actually more of the opposite to what you think it means: in that a glory-seeker is nowadays referred to as a SJW.

You do not appear to understand that speaking on social justice does not define one as a SJW. Referring to someone as a SJW infers that the person is wasting everyone’s time with petty causes, mostly for self-validation.

Maybe I can help you understand by the example of someone being called a "real do-gooder". That does not have the literal meaning that the person does really good things. In spite of the literal meaning of doing good, the term is applied to someone who only thinks he is doing good, but is actually more of a pain in the ass and is mostly interested in moulding other people to his misguided ideas.

And if I had referred to MLK as a SJW you might well have been the first one to complain.

Last edited by buddyholly; Dec 31st, 2017 at 12:19 PM.
buddyholly is offline  
post #86 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 31st, 2017, 12:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,154
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by pov View Post

Again the point is that in using a pro social justice term as an insult is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. .
That is exactly my point - if I understand what you are saying in that somewhat muddled sentence.

Calling someone a SJW does not mean you think they have a commitment to social justice.

Last edited by buddyholly; Dec 31st, 2017 at 12:21 PM.
buddyholly is offline  
post #87 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 31st, 2017, 12:32 PM
country flag pov
Senior Member
 
pov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,941
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
That is exactly my point - if I understand what you are saying in that somewhat muddled sentence.

Calling someone a SJW does not mean you think they have a commitment to social justice.
No you didn't understand. Muddled? Hmmm . maybe. Let's have a look.

using a pro social justice term as an insult is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. .

My apologies but I think that's clear. Simple even. But since you misunderstood I'll re-state.

It is almost certain that those who use pro social-justice terms as insults are people who have little or no commitment to social justice.

"These lifeforms feel such passionate hatreds over matters of custom, God concepts, even - strangely enough - economic systems." - Capt. J Piccard USS Enterprise

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
pov is offline  
post #88 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 31st, 2017, 01:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,154
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by pov View Post
No you didn't understand. Muddled? Hmmm . maybe. Let's have a look.

using a pro social justice term as an insult is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. .

My apologies but I think that's clear. Simple even. But since you misunderstood I'll re-state.

It is almost certain that those who use pro social-justice terms as insults are people who have little or no commitment to social justice.
Ah, well, you had to delete part of your sentence in order to make it grammatically correct. Actually, all you had to take out was the little word "in". When you put that word in your original sentence, you then needed a subject in front of "is", farther along in the sentence.

But then you fouled out again by completely reversing the meaning and insisting it was the same argument.

In the first sentence you say that using a social justice term is not indicative of a commitment to social justice. (This says nothing at all about whether the person is, or is not, committed to social justice).

Now you try to explain that to me as meaning that using a social justice term is almost certain to indicate a person who little or no commitment to social justice.

Positives and negatives are getting all mixed up here.

And we have wandered off the point that the dictionary now defines SJW as a perjorative. It no longer has a literal meaning. Just as my example of "do-gooder" does not have a literal meaning.

But Happy New Year.

Time to turn the page (not literally).
buddyholly is offline  
post #89 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 31st, 2017, 01:34 PM
country flag pov
Senior Member
 
pov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,941
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
Ah, well, you had to delete part of your sentence in order to make it grammatically correct. Actually, all you had to take out was the little word "in". When you put that word in your original sentence, you then needed a subject in front of "is", farther along in the sentence.

But then you fouled out again by completely reversing the meaning and insisting it was the same argument.
The "in" is an obvious typo. I was first going to phrase it differently, changed my mind mid-sentence and neglected to erase.

I mean . . . . and SMH

"These lifeforms feel such passionate hatreds over matters of custom, God concepts, even - strangely enough - economic systems." - Capt. J Piccard USS Enterprise

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
pov is offline  
post #90 of 2224 (permalink) Old Dec 31st, 2017, 01:48 PM
country flag pov
Senior Member
 
pov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,941
                     
Re: Race-relations Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
So I was right. Your sentence did not make sense. I think it even more disturbing that you knew it and just left it that way.
No you were not right. There's a difference between "did not make sense" and a glaring typo that even most HS freshman would easily notice. To me all your doing is again showing a lack of clear cognizance. I'm out.

"These lifeforms feel such passionate hatreds over matters of custom, God concepts, even - strangely enough - economic systems." - Capt. J Piccard USS Enterprise

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
pov is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome