People crying racist cuz Mario was in a poncho and sombrero. *heavy eye roll* people are way too sensitive these days and need to get over it. If people took the time and energy they spend on bitchin about pointless shit and turned it into something positive the world would be a better place.
This. How soon they all forget, that this isn't the first time he's worn a sombrero anyway:
However, I would also like to note that he's an italian sterotype, and has been that way for YEARS. He's even wore an Italian chef's outfit, and nobody cared. But if he puts on a sombrero and poncho... OH NO!!!
It's just the current bandwagon outcry of this generation.
If they really want something to cry about... The shyguys are promoting "whiteface".
what's next Mario, skinning animals for their fur?
Also power rangers. Black ranger=black guy, yellow ranger = asian girl, would never happen today. At least not both in the same group of rangers
Girl = pink, Native American = Red
The unspoken issue is with Billy, the blue ranger, who was harassed for being gay. Hollywood will never change.
The red ranger was really Native American? I assumed he was italian
I guess he's a mix, with Native American mixed in. Could just be internet rumors/speculation as there's nothing stating his heritage on the actors IMBD or Wiki page. If you look at him back then, he definitely looks like a mix of Native American and Japanese, though.
Only two people can tell if it is racist and that is JTG and Shad. They have used the name and gimmick post wwe. Seems like it was done very tongue in cheek and weren't they mostly booked as faces?
I am a massive fan of satire and it should be used to make fun of every single race, religion, stereotype...Anything.
Making fun of a person of a different race in a satirical context isn't racism by the way, genuine hate for someone because of their race is or thinking your race is superior to another is.
I find A LOT of people have a hard time with this, lets all make fun of eachother and move on.
Maybe I have a chip on my shoulder and get a little bit defensive on topics like this because I've seen and experienced personally so many instances of true hate. And I know it doesn't always come from a hateful place.
I think it's important to have people like you who are "a little bit defensive" yet levelheaded and cogent about these issues. I think too often some people jump on the bandwagon of viewing any change in what's socially acceptable as a threat to what they consider free speech (or entitlement to say whatever they want) instead of realizing that maybe it's just part of society's evolving sense of human decency that we become marginally less oppressive to certain groups, little by little.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just to be clear. This is an issue I also care deeply about, but I'm not typing this as a passive-aggressive way of calling someone out for not being PC enough. I apologize in advance if this post sounds judgmental, as it's not intended to be.
It just occurred to me that the term PC is possibly damaging in itself. It makes it too easy to be dismissive or even mocking of serious issues (along the same lines of calling anyone who cares about equality an SJW pejoratively).
edit: Oh, and now that I reread where this landed in the context of the discussion, I should add that I'm not against satire by any means, and I don't think anything that has to do with race or gender is inherently racist or sexist. The psychology behind comedy can be pretty complicated and super interesting. As is the difference between noticing trends and perpetuating stereotypes. Interesting stuff.
People crying racist cuz Mario was in a poncho and sombrero. *heavy eye roll* people are way too sensitive these days and need to get over it. If people took the time and energy they spend on bitchin about pointless shit and turned it into something positive the world would be a better place.
This. How soon they all forget, that this isn't the first time he's worn a sombrero anyway:
However, I would also like to note that he's an italian sterotype, and has been that way for YEARS. He's even wore an Italian chef's outfit, and nobody cared. But if he puts on a sombrero and poncho... OH NO!!!
It's just the current bandwagon outcry of this generation.
If they really want something to cry about... The shyguys are promoting "whiteface".
Here in Mexico almost nobody cares, or is actually happy about it.
Blazing Saddles exists to make fun of the very things that society found acceptable at that time. The movie itself is not offensive, as Mel Brooks was simply calling out the wrong backwards thinking that existed in society. It stands as one of the greatest satires ever created because it understood this.
I remember watching Tom&Jerry cartoons where Tom's owner was a stereotypical black woman. I actually really liked that character as a kid and didn't give a single fuck about her skin colour, but nowadays it seems that you can't even air that without someone claiming it's "racist".
Originally posted by: cirellio
Any films/books/TV shows with an all-white cast are Not Allowed Anymore.
Doesn't matter if they're a mix of Icelandic, Australian, Argentinian, South African, etc.
This. Seems like everything now needs to have a disabled transgender black woman to be PC enough to be allowed.
Either way, this video is still a great showcase of what's wrong with some people today...
Blazing Saddles exists to make fun of the very things that society found acceptable at that time. The movie itself is not offensive, as Mel Brooks was simply calling out the wrong backwards thinking that existed in society. It stands as one of the greatest satires ever created because it understood this.
Unfortunately too much of the population these days is too dull witted (or too ill educated - but the two are not mutually exclusive) to know that the most effective way of combating things that are wrong is to mock them with their inherent inconsistencies.
It is real sad position wherein we have reached wherein it is wrong to criticise something unless you do in a vitriolic manner that is approved by some unelected and anoymous self appointed censors
Here is hopefully an interesting perspective on the issue. I try to distinguish between different segments of the issue of racism. What I mean by that, is you have the people who are truly hateful and racist - who view people who are different as lesser beings and judge them and wish them ill-will, or worse cause them physical or emotional harm. These people are in a class of their own. I actually don't think MOST reasonable people fall into this category.
For the rest of us - who I would call decent human beings - I don't think it's a matter of being racist or not being racist. I won't even necessarily call it a spectrum of racism, for the sake of this point.
I think all of us use stereotypes and information / experiences we've had to form our opinions of how we might expect people to act or be. And some of this is completely normal and even a self-defense or instinctual mechanism. We all use our past experiences and the experiences of those we trust to help guide us in making future decisions and dealing with people / dealing with life.
The challenge is, sometimes we apply these experiences and stereotypes unfairly, and attribute characteristics to people based on them. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian author who I respect greatly, really express this well with her explanation of the single story, when she says "the single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story." She talks about this in the context of media, society, and various sources perpetuating a single story about what it means to be black, what it means to be African, what it means to be this or that.
So one of the reasons that simplified, or even glorified, perpetuated stereotypes cause so much pain for some is because they continue this concept of a single story about a type of person, or culture, or race, or gender. So the struggle for us many times, is simply recognizing that we use stereotypes and generalizations, and just being cognizant of HOW we interpret the information and how we use our own experiences and the experiences of others to frame our expectations of other people.
And this does also work across the board to many segments of society, including traditional majority populations and religions, but I think the pain with minorities in particular, is the long-term struggle for broader social acceptance and equity that has eluded many.
Maybe some people go about this the wrong way, but the continual push for greater representation of these groups is for many not just about being PC, but about having greater representation in the news, media, social media, etc. to try to make up for the lack of such representation over a long period of time. Eventually, my hope is that we begin to see a much broader representation of different types of behaviors and characteristics, such that the single story is no longer such a problem.
Sorry for the huge post, but just something to think about.
EDIT to add: This doesn't mean I am a proponent of simply adding 'token' minorities of types of people, inserting into every situation possible JUST for some kind of representation. In my personal opinion, we should do a better job of representing different types of people and different types of behaviors, and in ways that show a broader variety to slowly erode the single story stereotypes I'm referring to above.
EDIT to add more : An example of when this is done very poorly in my opinion, is reality TV. For example, the show Big Brother (if you've seen it), has a variety of people in the reality show, and there always seems to be the 'token' gay person - and it frustrates me because they tend to always pick the most flamboyant, exaggerated personality they can possibly find who always talks about his sexuality and basically represents a particular stereotype of what it means to be gay. So you watch shows like this and other shows, and you continue to see this perpetuated stereotype of a homosexual male - flamboyant, feminine, over-the-top, overly sexual in discussion and mannerisms, and it frames people's perspectives about what homosexuality is or what it means to be a gay male. Just an example.
At that point it comes down to whether this kind of diversity should evolve naturally or if it should be forced into place. Rushed in, if you will. Our society is going in such a direction where this kind of thing should occur naturally over time, but like you said it seems like writers artificially change a random character to virtue signal 'just because', when doing such a thing is supposed to inform the story in some meaningful way ... and usually does not.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
Some groups (especially extremists within these groups) cannot handle satire at all. People who make a satire that involves a certain prophet in any way have reported getting death threats. Some have even had to go into hiding with new identities.
I guess some people are not ready to laugh at themselves. Maybe give it time.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
I would have to see a reliable source to believe that restaurants are being compelled to serve Halal meat, if they don't choose to do so.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
I would have to see a reliable source to believe that restaurants are being compelled to serve Halal meat, if they don't choose to do so.
Yeah, forced is a strong word in some of these cases. Being pressured is a better way to put it.
Many have caved to the demands over there.
Others have simply been doing it to appease them without telling the general public.
Not sure if there's animal rights folks here, but you may want to look into Dhabīḥah. It's not a humane way to kill animals, and is in fact a ritualistic style slaughter.
Here's a few handy charts if you're ever in Europe/travelling abroad:
JTG came up with that gimmick and pitched it to Vince McMahon. He talked about it on a podcast (not sure which one) at some point. I think it was Jericho's?
Ssssooooo, stereotypes, yes, but... the black guys came up with the whole gimmick.
From an interview with wrestlinginc.com:
I recently spoke with former WWE star Jayson Anthony Paul, f.k.a. JTG, who was promoting his new book, Damn, Why Did I Write This Book?. During the interview - which was conducted before the Hulk Hogancontroversy and will be published here on Wrestling Inc. later this week - JTG discussed his time with WWE, having heat in the company, speaking out against WWE and getting punished, issues wrestlers have with Triple H and more. He also talked about getting the Cryme Tyme gimmick.
"Well, there's two aspects to the Cryme Tyme gimmick," JTG said. "There's the look of the characters. At first, I didn't want to do it. My original partner was Abraham Washington. He called me up when we were in amateur class in OVW. He said we had an amateur show coming up, and he said if we were trying to get signed we needed to come out with bulletproof vests, fitted hats, a whole bunch of chains. We should wrestle in jeans and Timberlands. I said absolutely not, it's too stereotypical, and I already bought tights and wrestling boots. He talked me in to it, and we did the amateur show. We blew the roof off at the amateur show."
So it sounds like he rolled with the gimmick, but it originated as his previous partner's idea that he wasn't crazy about. He goes onto say that the WWE just lacked the diversity in their creative staff to come up with the ideas to properly promote young African-American superstars to their audience at the time.
Hmmmm, I stand corrected.
Let's just keep in mind that WWE is "entertainment" and just like other movies, and TV shows, they use satire and stereotypes to force us to reevaluate popular culture and our society as a whole.
There are "bad guys" who do bad things. Does that make WWE inherantly racist? No. Is it a bad thing if someon says something racist, yes. (Paul heyman said that Roman Reigns was "two generations away from having a bone through his nose". Roman is Samoan. But they're playing characters. Nobody ever questions films for the "bad guys" they have in them. And there's things villains do that are A LOT worse in movies (killing, raping, holding people hostage, etc.) that the "bad guys" in WWE would never do.
And, as has been pointed out, Cryme Tyme was predominantly a babyface tag team (the good guys) so it's not even like they were portrayed as bad people. They were fun-loving gangstas.
New Jack (black guy playing a gangsta) would never have been considered racist... because that's who the guy is. Not in WWE.
Also, Eddie Geurerro had the best run of his career as a mexican who would "lie, cheat, and steal" making a farce of the stereotype. He was the biggest babyface in the company with that gimmick.
So, it goes both ways. In WWE specifically, they use steretypes as satire, and they have "bad guys" do bad things because that's the nature of storytelling. It's good vs. evil at it's very core.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
I would have to see a reliable source to believe that restaurants are being compelled to serve Halal meat, if they don't choose to do so.
Yeah, forced is a strong word in some of these cases. Being pressured is a better way to put it.
Many have caved to the demands over there.
Others have simply been doing it to appease them without telling the general public.
Not sure if there's animal rights folks here, but you may want to look into Dhabīḥah. It's not a humane way to kill animals, and is in fact a ritualistic style slaughter.
Here's a few handy charts if you're ever in Europe/travelling abroad:
On that note arch, something I've seen locally is that a lot of pizza restaurants are offering gluten-free pizza on their menus. And at least around here, there isn't any legislation or requirement that they do so, and there isn't even extreme pressure that they do so. But I think they have recognized that it is very popular and there is demand for it. There are customers who, regardless of whether it is a true medical need, perceived medical need, or simply want, like gluten free options, and so businesses around here have offered extra accommodations. Some people get so worked up over this which is interesting. I know a few people who are aiming for gluten-free, and none of them that I know have been hateful or put a lot of pressure on any restaurant for not having special accommodations for them.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
I would have to see a reliable source to believe that restaurants are being compelled to serve Halal meat, if they don't choose to do so.
Yeah, forced is a strong word in some of these cases. Being pressured is a better way to put it.
Many have caved to the demands over there.
Others have simply been doing it to appease them without telling the general public.
Not sure if there's animal rights folks here, but you may want to look into Dhabīḥah. It's not a humane way to kill animals, and is in fact a ritualistic style slaughter.
Here's a few handy charts if you're ever in Europe/travelling abroad:
On that note arch, something I've seen locally is that a lot of pizza restaurants are offering gluten-free pizza on their menus. And at least around here, there isn't any legislation or requirement that they do so, and there isn't even extreme pressure that they do so. But I think they have recognized that it is very popular and there is demand for it. There are customers who, regardless of whether it is a true medical need, perceived medical need, or simply want, like gluten free options, and so businesses around here have offered extra accommodations. Some people get so worked up over this which is interesting. I know a few people who are aiming for gluten-free, and none of them that I know have been hateful or put a lot of pressure on any restaurant for not having special accommodations for them.
You are comparing something completely non-religious with something very religious. Not apples-to-apples. I've also not seen anyone get worked up over gluten-free options. I personally think it's silly, but I don't give anyone grief for offering that option nor buying that option.
All this work though, and explosive vests are made from nitroglycerides ... made from animal fat ... probably from non-Halal sources. Uh oh
Was that comment really necessary?
It's worth pointing out. It's like vegans that wear leather shoes, but worse.
Religious fundamentalists of all types ignore a lot of things to further their ideology, but to blanket Muslims who want to adhere to their beliefs with those who murder is not kosher, so to speak.
It's like lumping the zealots who bomb abortion clinics in with all Christians.
On that note arch, something I've seen locally is that a lot of pizza restaurants are offering gluten-free pizza on their menus. And at least around here, there isn't any legislation or requirement that they do so, and there isn't even extreme pressure that they do so. But I think they have recognized that it is very popular and there is demand for it. There are customers who, regardless of whether it is a true medical need, perceived medical need, or simply want, like gluten free options, and so businesses around here have offered extra accommodations. Some people get so worked up over this which is interesting. I know a few people who are aiming for gluten-free, and none of them that I know have been hateful or put a lot of pressure on any restaurant for not having special accommodations for them.
You are comparing something completely non-religious with something very religious. Not apples-to-apples. I've also not seen anyone get worked up over gluten-free options. I personally think it's silly, but I don't give anyone grief for offering that option nor buying that option.
I'm not trying to compare it to anything - it is kind of a tangent, my point being that this change has occurred in some places not because of force or significant pressure, but because of consumer demand. And this relates to the conversation because several other changes have occurred in various contexts of society - sometimes laws and regulations are involved - but some of the changes are simply responses to consumer demand.
All this work though, and explosive vests are made from nitroglycerides ... made from animal fat ... probably from non-Halal sources. Uh oh
Was that comment really necessary?
It's worth pointing out. It's like vegans that wear leather shoes, but worse.
Religious fundamentalists of all types ignore a lot of things to further their ideology, but to blanket Muslims who want to adhere to their beliefs with those who murder is not kosher, so to speak.
Very few vegetarians are vegan, and very few Islamists are terrorists. As someone who has Muslim coworkers, I take great offense to what you're implying here.
Yeah, as people found out what was involved with Dhabīḥah, there were concerns and groups started to rule that the animals should be stunned first before performing the ritualistic killing. It's interesting that we want diversity, but supporting Halal means that only followers of Islam are allowed to have that job to slaughter the animals, (but it is allowed if for Sunnis). They still must pray to Allah as they perform the ritual sacrifice though. Gotta give power to their gods. All this work though, and explosive vests are made from nitroglycerides ... made from animal fat ... probably from non-Halal sources. Uh oh
Not all vegetarians are vegans, nor are all Islams terrorists. As someone who has Muslim coworkers, I take great offense to what you're implying here.
I don't think you're equating all Muslims = terrorists, but just that your comment has that connotation, intended or not. If we were talking about Christians and belief in "thou shall not kill," and I brought up "too bad they bomb abortion clinics," I don't think that would go over well, either.
Originally posted by: cirellio
It's interesting that we want diversity, but supporting Halal means that only followers of Islam are allowed to have that job to slaughter the animals, (but it is allowed if for Sunnis). They still must pray to Allah as they perform the ritual sacrifice though. Gotta give power to their gods.
Muslims only worship one god. And halal meat can be consumed by anyone. Slaughterhouses just found it convenient to make it all halal since most people wouldn't care (or know) and their product can now be consumed by their Muslim customers. I agree that it's monetary pressure, rather than any big religious push.
Not all vegetarians are vegans, nor are all Islams terrorists. As someone who has Muslim coworkers, I take great offense to what you're implying here.
I don't think you're equating all Muslims = terrorists, but just that your comment has that connotation, intended or not.
That was not my intention at all. Sorry if it came off differently than intended. I was merely illustrating that the most devoted to sacrificing themselves for 'holy war' aren't necessarily thinking things through.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Do you have a similar objection to Kosher foods?
I generally disagree with ritualistic sacrifices for mass food consumption.
Comments
I thought this was gonna be about Mario Odyssey
People crying racist cuz Mario was in a poncho and sombrero. *heavy eye roll* people are way too sensitive these days and need to get over it. If people took the time and energy they spend on bitchin about pointless shit and turned it into something positive the world would be a better place.
This. How soon they all forget, that this isn't the first time he's worn a sombrero anyway:
However, I would also like to note that he's an italian sterotype, and has been that way for YEARS. He's even wore an Italian chef's outfit, and nobody cared. But if he puts on a sombrero and poncho... OH NO!!!
It's just the current bandwagon outcry of this generation.
If they really want something to cry about... The shyguys are promoting "whiteface".
what's next Mario, skinning animals for their fur?
No way, that'll never happe--
Damn it, Peta...
Also power rangers. Black ranger=black guy, yellow ranger = asian girl, would never happen today. At least not both in the same group of rangers
Girl = pink, Native American = Red
The unspoken issue is with Billy, the blue ranger, who was harassed for being gay. Hollywood will never change.
The red ranger was really Native American? I assumed he was italian
Also power rangers. Black ranger=black guy, yellow ranger = asian girl, would never happen today. At least not both in the same group of rangers
Girl = pink, Native American = Red
The unspoken issue is with Billy, the blue ranger, who was harassed for being gay. Hollywood will never change.
The red ranger was really Native American? I assumed he was italian
I guess he's a mix, with Native American mixed in. Could just be internet rumors/speculation as there's nothing stating his heritage on the actors IMBD or Wiki page. If you look at him back then, he definitely looks like a mix of Native American and Japanese, though.
Making fun of a person of a different race in a satirical context isn't racism by the way, genuine hate for someone because of their race is or thinking your race is superior to another is.
I find A LOT of people have a hard time with this, lets all make fun of eachother and move on.
Maybe I have a chip on my shoulder and get a little bit defensive on topics like this because I've seen and experienced personally so many instances of true hate. And I know it doesn't always come from a hateful place.
I think it's important to have people like you who are "a little bit defensive" yet levelheaded and cogent about these issues. I think too often some people jump on the bandwagon of viewing any change in what's socially acceptable as a threat to what they consider free speech (or entitlement to say whatever they want) instead of realizing that maybe it's just part of society's evolving sense of human decency that we become marginally less oppressive to certain groups, little by little.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just to be clear. This is an issue I also care deeply about, but I'm not typing this as a passive-aggressive way of calling someone out for not being PC enough. I apologize in advance if this post sounds judgmental, as it's not intended to be.
It just occurred to me that the term PC is possibly damaging in itself. It makes it too easy to be dismissive or even mocking of serious issues (along the same lines of calling anyone who cares about equality an SJW pejoratively).
edit: Oh, and now that I reread where this landed in the context of the discussion, I should add that I'm not against satire by any means, and I don't think anything that has to do with race or gender is inherently racist or sexist. The psychology behind comedy can be pretty complicated and super interesting. As is the difference between noticing trends and perpetuating stereotypes. Interesting stuff.
I thought this was gonna be about Mario Odyssey
People crying racist cuz Mario was in a poncho and sombrero. *heavy eye roll* people are way too sensitive these days and need to get over it. If people took the time and energy they spend on bitchin about pointless shit and turned it into something positive the world would be a better place.
This. How soon they all forget, that this isn't the first time he's worn a sombrero anyway:
However, I would also like to note that he's an italian sterotype, and has been that way for YEARS. He's even wore an Italian chef's outfit, and nobody cared. But if he puts on a sombrero and poncho... OH NO!!!
It's just the current bandwagon outcry of this generation.
If they really want something to cry about... The shyguys are promoting "whiteface".
Here in Mexico almost nobody cares, or is actually happy about it.
Blazing Saddles exists to make fun of the very things that society found acceptable at that time. The movie itself is not offensive, as Mel Brooks was simply calling out the wrong backwards thinking that existed in society. It stands as one of the greatest satires ever created because it understood this.
Any films/books/TV shows with an all-white cast are Not Allowed Anymore.
Doesn't matter if they're a mix of Icelandic, Australian, Argentinian, South African, etc.
This. Seems like everything now needs to have a disabled transgender black woman to be PC enough to be allowed.
Either way, this video is still a great showcase of what's wrong with some people today...
Seems like everything now needs to have a disabled transgender black woman to be PC enough to be allowed.
"Unless you're a black homosexual working class woman you're an oppressor - pig." (Lemmings (1973) - National Lampoon)
Blazing Saddles exists to make fun of the very things that society found acceptable at that time. The movie itself is not offensive, as Mel Brooks was simply calling out the wrong backwards thinking that existed in society. It stands as one of the greatest satires ever created because it understood this.
Unfortunately too much of the population these days is too dull witted (or too ill educated - but the two are not mutually exclusive) to know that the most effective way of combating things that are wrong is to mock them with their inherent inconsistencies.
It is real sad position wherein we have reached wherein it is wrong to criticise something unless you do in a vitriolic manner that is approved by some unelected and anoymous self appointed censors
For the rest of us - who I would call decent human beings - I don't think it's a matter of being racist or not being racist. I won't even necessarily call it a spectrum of racism, for the sake of this point.
I think all of us use stereotypes and information / experiences we've had to form our opinions of how we might expect people to act or be. And some of this is completely normal and even a self-defense or instinctual mechanism. We all use our past experiences and the experiences of those we trust to help guide us in making future decisions and dealing with people / dealing with life.
The challenge is, sometimes we apply these experiences and stereotypes unfairly, and attribute characteristics to people based on them. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian author who I respect greatly, really express this well with her explanation of the single story, when she says "the single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story." She talks about this in the context of media, society, and various sources perpetuating a single story about what it means to be black, what it means to be African, what it means to be this or that.
So one of the reasons that simplified, or even glorified, perpetuated stereotypes cause so much pain for some is because they continue this concept of a single story about a type of person, or culture, or race, or gender. So the struggle for us many times, is simply recognizing that we use stereotypes and generalizations, and just being cognizant of HOW we interpret the information and how we use our own experiences and the experiences of others to frame our expectations of other people.
And this does also work across the board to many segments of society, including traditional majority populations and religions, but I think the pain with minorities in particular, is the long-term struggle for broader social acceptance and equity that has eluded many.
Maybe some people go about this the wrong way, but the continual push for greater representation of these groups is for many not just about being PC, but about having greater representation in the news, media, social media, etc. to try to make up for the lack of such representation over a long period of time. Eventually, my hope is that we begin to see a much broader representation of different types of behaviors and characteristics, such that the single story is no longer such a problem.
Sorry for the huge post, but just something to think about.
EDIT to add: This doesn't mean I am a proponent of simply adding 'token' minorities of types of people, inserting into every situation possible JUST for some kind of representation. In my personal opinion, we should do a better job of representing different types of people and different types of behaviors, and in ways that show a broader variety to slowly erode the single story stereotypes I'm referring to above.
EDIT to add more : An example of when this is done very poorly in my opinion, is reality TV. For example, the show Big Brother (if you've seen it), has a variety of people in the reality show, and there always seems to be the 'token' gay person - and it frustrates me because they tend to always pick the most flamboyant, exaggerated personality they can possibly find who always talks about his sexuality and basically represents a particular stereotype of what it means to be gay. So you watch shows like this and other shows, and you continue to see this perpetuated stereotype of a homosexual male - flamboyant, feminine, over-the-top, overly sexual in discussion and mannerisms, and it frames people's perspectives about what homosexuality is or what it means to be a gay male. Just an example.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
Some groups (especially extremists within these groups) cannot handle satire at all. People who make a satire that involves a certain prophet in any way have reported getting death threats. Some have even had to go into hiding with new identities.
I guess some people are not ready to laugh at themselves. Maybe give it time.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
I would have to see a reliable source to believe that restaurants are being compelled to serve Halal meat, if they don't choose to do so.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
I would have to see a reliable source to believe that restaurants are being compelled to serve Halal meat, if they don't choose to do so.
Yeah, forced is a strong word in some of these cases. Being pressured is a better way to put it.
Many have caved to the demands over there.
Others have simply been doing it to appease them without telling the general public.
Not sure if there's animal rights folks here, but you may want to look into Dhabīḥah. It's not a humane way to kill animals, and is in fact a ritualistic style slaughter.
Here's a few handy charts if you're ever in Europe/travelling abroad:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/07/article-2622830-1DA7176A00000578-136_634x967.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/07/article-2622830-1DA714BE00000578-33_634x974.jpg
... Just a heads up Quaze.
JTG came up with that gimmick and pitched it to Vince McMahon. He talked about it on a podcast (not sure which one) at some point. I think it was Jericho's?
Ssssooooo, stereotypes, yes, but... the black guys came up with the whole gimmick.
From an interview with wrestlinginc.com:
I recently spoke with former WWE star Jayson Anthony Paul, f.k.a. JTG, who was promoting his new book, Damn, Why Did I Write This Book?. During the interview - which was conducted before the Hulk Hogancontroversy and will be published here on Wrestling Inc. later this week - JTG discussed his time with WWE, having heat in the company, speaking out against WWE and getting punished, issues wrestlers have with Triple H and more. He also talked about getting the Cryme Tyme gimmick.
"Well, there's two aspects to the Cryme Tyme gimmick," JTG said. "There's the look of the characters. At first, I didn't want to do it. My original partner was Abraham Washington. He called me up when we were in amateur class in OVW. He said we had an amateur show coming up, and he said if we were trying to get signed we needed to come out with bulletproof vests, fitted hats, a whole bunch of chains. We should wrestle in jeans and Timberlands. I said absolutely not, it's too stereotypical, and I already bought tights and wrestling boots. He talked me in to it, and we did the amateur show. We blew the roof off at the amateur show."
So it sounds like he rolled with the gimmick, but it originated as his previous partner's idea that he wasn't crazy about. He goes onto say that the WWE just lacked the diversity in their creative staff to come up with the ideas to properly promote young African-American superstars to their audience at the time.
Hmmmm, I stand corrected.
Let's just keep in mind that WWE is "entertainment" and just like other movies, and TV shows, they use satire and stereotypes to force us to reevaluate popular culture and our society as a whole.
There are "bad guys" who do bad things. Does that make WWE inherantly racist? No. Is it a bad thing if someon says something racist, yes. (Paul heyman said that Roman Reigns was "two generations away from having a bone through his nose". Roman is Samoan. But they're playing characters. Nobody ever questions films for the "bad guys" they have in them. And there's things villains do that are A LOT worse in movies (killing, raping, holding people hostage, etc.) that the "bad guys" in WWE would never do.
And, as has been pointed out, Cryme Tyme was predominantly a babyface tag team (the good guys) so it's not even like they were portrayed as bad people. They were fun-loving gangstas.
New Jack (black guy playing a gangsta) would never have been considered racist... because that's who the guy is. Not in WWE.
Also, Eddie Geurerro had the best run of his career as a mexican who would "lie, cheat, and steal" making a farce of the stereotype. He was the biggest babyface in the company with that gimmick.
So, it goes both ways. In WWE specifically, they use steretypes as satire, and they have "bad guys" do bad things because that's the nature of storytelling. It's good vs. evil at it's very core.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
I would have to see a reliable source to believe that restaurants are being compelled to serve Halal meat, if they don't choose to do so.
Yeah, forced is a strong word in some of these cases. Being pressured is a better way to put it.
Many have caved to the demands over there.
Others have simply been doing it to appease them without telling the general public.
Not sure if there's animal rights folks here, but you may want to look into Dhabīḥah. It's not a humane way to kill animals, and is in fact a ritualistic style slaughter.
Here's a few handy charts if you're ever in Europe/travelling abroad:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/20...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/20...
Don't know if you intended those links to relate to your other comment, or not.
I've said it before - We are a melting pot society, but we need to give some cultures a longer time to melt than others. The bigger the culture shock, the longer it takes. We should not have to change our entire culture to accommodate their ways -- a little change is okay, but seems like Europe has had to bend backwards for a certain culture that is causing a lot of violence lately. Being forced to tear down a new statue because it offended someone, being forced to store, prepare, and serve a specific type of meat in specific ways at every restaurant, forgiving rapists because they are the 'true victims', even creating laws not allowing you to criticize a specific religion in any way? IMO not a good thing.
I would have to see a reliable source to believe that restaurants are being compelled to serve Halal meat, if they don't choose to do so.
Yeah, forced is a strong word in some of these cases. Being pressured is a better way to put it.
Many have caved to the demands over there.
Others have simply been doing it to appease them without telling the general public.
Not sure if there's animal rights folks here, but you may want to look into Dhabīḥah. It's not a humane way to kill animals, and is in fact a ritualistic style slaughter.
Here's a few handy charts if you're ever in Europe/travelling abroad:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/07/article-2622830-1D...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/07/article-2622830-1D...
Don't know if you intended those links to relate to your other comment, or not.
On that note arch, something I've seen locally is that a lot of pizza restaurants are offering gluten-free pizza on their menus. And at least around here, there isn't any legislation or requirement that they do so, and there isn't even extreme pressure that they do so. But I think they have recognized that it is very popular and there is demand for it. There are customers who, regardless of whether it is a true medical need, perceived medical need, or simply want, like gluten free options, and so businesses around here have offered extra accommodations. Some people get so worked up over this which is interesting. I know a few people who are aiming for gluten-free, and none of them that I know have been hateful or put a lot of pressure on any restaurant for not having special accommodations for them.
You are comparing something completely non-religious with something very religious. Not apples-to-apples. I've also not seen anyone get worked up over gluten-free options. I personally think it's silly, but I don't give anyone grief for offering that option nor buying that option.
All this work though, and explosive vests are made from nitroglycerides ... made from animal fat ... probably from non-Halal sources. Uh oh
Was that comment really necessary?
All this work though, and explosive vests are made from nitroglycerides ... made from animal fat ... probably from non-Halal sources. Uh oh
Was that comment really necessary?
It's worth pointing out. It's like vegans that wear leather shoes, but worse.
All this work though, and explosive vests are made from nitroglycerides ... made from animal fat ... probably from non-Halal sources. Uh oh
Was that comment really necessary?
It's worth pointing out. It's like vegans that wear leather shoes, but worse.
Religious fundamentalists of all types ignore a lot of things to further their ideology, but to blanket Muslims who want to adhere to their beliefs with those who murder is not kosher, so to speak.
It's like lumping the zealots who bomb abortion clinics in with all Christians.
On that note arch, something I've seen locally is that a lot of pizza restaurants are offering gluten-free pizza on their menus. And at least around here, there isn't any legislation or requirement that they do so, and there isn't even extreme pressure that they do so. But I think they have recognized that it is very popular and there is demand for it. There are customers who, regardless of whether it is a true medical need, perceived medical need, or simply want, like gluten free options, and so businesses around here have offered extra accommodations. Some people get so worked up over this which is interesting. I know a few people who are aiming for gluten-free, and none of them that I know have been hateful or put a lot of pressure on any restaurant for not having special accommodations for them.
You are comparing something completely non-religious with something very religious. Not apples-to-apples. I've also not seen anyone get worked up over gluten-free options. I personally think it's silly, but I don't give anyone grief for offering that option nor buying that option.
I'm not trying to compare it to anything - it is kind of a tangent, my point being that this change has occurred in some places not because of force or significant pressure, but because of consumer demand. And this relates to the conversation because several other changes have occurred in various contexts of society - sometimes laws and regulations are involved - but some of the changes are simply responses to consumer demand.
All this work though, and explosive vests are made from nitroglycerides ... made from animal fat ... probably from non-Halal sources. Uh oh
Was that comment really necessary?
It's worth pointing out. It's like vegans that wear leather shoes, but worse.
Religious fundamentalists of all types ignore a lot of things to further their ideology, but to blanket Muslims who want to adhere to their beliefs with those who murder is not kosher, so to speak.
Very few vegetarians are vegan, and very few Islamists are terrorists. As someone who has Muslim coworkers, I take great offense to what you're implying here.
Yeah, as people found out what was involved with Dhabīḥah, there were concerns and groups started to rule that the animals should be stunned first before performing the ritualistic killing. It's interesting that we want diversity, but supporting Halal means that only followers of Islam are allowed to have that job to slaughter the animals, (but it is allowed if for Sunnis). They still must pray to Allah as they perform the ritual sacrifice though. Gotta give power to their gods. All this work though, and explosive vests are made from nitroglycerides ... made from animal fat ... probably from non-Halal sources. Uh oh
Do you have a similar objection to Kosher foods?
Not all vegetarians are vegans, nor are all Islams terrorists. As someone who has Muslim coworkers, I take great offense to what you're implying here.
I don't think you're equating all Muslims = terrorists, but just that your comment has that connotation, intended or not. If we were talking about Christians and belief in "thou shall not kill," and I brought up "too bad they bomb abortion clinics," I don't think that would go over well, either.
It's interesting that we want diversity, but supporting Halal means that only followers of Islam are allowed to have that job to slaughter the animals, (but it is allowed if for Sunnis). They still must pray to Allah as they perform the ritual sacrifice though. Gotta give power to their gods.
Muslims only worship one god. And halal meat can be consumed by anyone. Slaughterhouses just found it convenient to make it all halal since most people wouldn't care (or know) and their product can now be consumed by their Muslim customers. I agree that it's monetary pressure, rather than any big religious push.
Not all vegetarians are vegans, nor are all Islams terrorists. As someone who has Muslim coworkers, I take great offense to what you're implying here.
I don't think you're equating all Muslims = terrorists, but just that your comment has that connotation, intended or not.
That was not my intention at all. Sorry if it came off differently than intended. I was merely illustrating that the most devoted to sacrificing themselves for 'holy war' aren't necessarily thinking things through.
Do you have a similar objection to Kosher foods?
I generally disagree with ritualistic sacrifices for mass food consumption.