Look at the progression of the discussion pal to find the context of the posts, the conversation had developed since then.
You mean @vi1lain who presumably should know a thing or two about having to live with it? Yeah, I trust her opinion on this.Read the flow of posts and then decide who changed the context of discussion, perhaps it'll give you a better idea of who is 'shaping' it.
Think you're getting lost here.Yes the context you created. The discussion put forward, and the definition provided to you was regarding racism. He hadnt qualified it, you had.
There is zero difference between racism from a white person to a black, black to white, white to asian. It is the act of discriminating against someone based solely on their race. It of course happens more frequently to certain races, and more frequently in certain ways, but quantity doesn't redefine the act. No instance should be treated differently based on the race of the victim and persecutor.
Do you not see the irony in highlighting racism against minorities yet trivialise minority instances of racism?
Anyway, digression aside the film is not racist, yet the title is designed to trigger 'snowflakes'.
Since it feels like we are going back, we should go further backSeems like the Republicans need more of these men:
I think the title was more to draw eyes than controversy. It is a stupid title but it is within the context of the film. And it certainly drew eyes.It is way over the top. But are you saying the title isn't deliberately looking for this reaction?
Yes the person who posted saying they wouldn't know what racism against white people would look like.You mean @vi1lain who presumably should know a thing or two about having to live with it? Yeah, I trust her opinion on this.
I dont. But then I'm not disagreeing with the 'book' definition for racism.Think you're getting lost here.
I've already said that racism by definition is prejudice/discrimination based on the colour of your skin, so what are you arguing?
Outside of a dictionary definitions and in the real world, racism isn't equal that's all I was saying.
If you disagree with that then we can agree to disagree because our perspectives & realities couldn't be more polar opposite.
It is deliberately designed to provoke this kind of reaction, how can it not be? You don't know it's a black cast and a black writer by the title. I'm not saying I'm offended by the title or that I agree with the reaction, I'm saying it's been manufactured for this reaction.Think about what you are saying, how is 'Dear white people' problematic?
If it was made by a white person with an all white cast, would it still be problematic? What about if it was also recommended to you by a white person?
The title itself isn't problematic imo, it's the assumptions of those that view it without considering the content...
The offence you are feeling now... Imaging what it feels like when you are a minority and racism is downplayed.Yes the person who posted saying they wouldn't know what racism against white people would look like.
You aren't offended? Ok so why are you insisting that it's designed to cause offence even though some in this thread said that they aren't offended, and another has suggested that it is designed to grab attention... Not as clear cut as you are making out is it?It is deliberately designed to provoke this kind of reaction, how can it not be? You don't know it's a black cast and a black writer by the title. I'm not saying I'm offended by the title or that I agree with the reaction, I'm saying it's been manufactured for this reaction.
It's a pretty mild title though, surely? Patronising at worst.It is deliberately designed to provoke this kind of reaction, how can it not be? You don't know it's a black cast and a black writer by the title. I'm not saying I'm offended by the title or that I agree with the reaction, I'm saying it's been manufactured for this reaction.
I'm not feeling offended... Not in the slightest, infact I've said repeatedly in one form or another that I'm not and I beleive the reaction is overblown, doesn't make my point any less prevelant though.The offence you are feeling now... Imaging what it feels like when you are a minority and racism is downplayed.
Incredibly mild.It's a pretty mild title though, surely? Patronising at worst.
Erm...I'm not feeling offended... Not in the slightest, infact I've said repeatedly in one form or another that I'm not and I beleive the reaction is overblown, doesn't make my point any less prevelant though.
It is literally what I said in the post you quoted, it shouldn't be news to you...Erm...
It is way over the top. But are you saying the title isn't deliberately looking for this reaction?
The title didn't get any controversy when the film came out in 2014.It is deliberately designed to provoke this kind of reaction, how can it not be?
@vi1lain asked what makes this movie or title racist, as you can see by the following post.Yes the person who posted saying they wouldn't know what racism against white people would look like.
I understand that, but does the film and this tv show promote discrimination, bullying or violence against white people for being white and nothing else?
A better advert for the show than the actual trailer. Made me want to watch the film.
Man, racism sucks when you're on the receiving end, doesn't it?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/...trailer-sparks-backlash-netflix-faces-claims/
*Are we allowed to copy and paste articles from The Telegraph?
95% of the ratings on the video are thumbs down and some commenters have labelled it racist, threatened to cancel their subscription and accused Netflix of race baiting. Although we've seen comedians address white people as a whole, it's usually been done as a way of including white people in the comedy. I do fear with things like this (and this is judging from the trailer) that it's not a way of including white people in a joke but more of a revenge fantasy.
Sorry, I was referring to the 'Dear white people', I personally think it is race baiting/generalising. You're right though about it being an over reaction and it's most likely the nationalist right wing types who'll strongly object.Its actually not. I'm only 20 minutes into the film version and it's seems to be more about how different black people and groups of black people deal with race, racism, belonging etc.
'Dear white people' is the name of a radio show run by one of the main characters who is a Black Panther type. I wouldn't call it baiting, attention seeking perhaps. But I feel the reaction to the title, without researching it, is way over the top.
Agree with Phil. It's another case of people judging the packaging and not the contents. On both sides. Everybody racing to give their opinion until it's still relevant, without doing any research.
she* it's amazing how you're fixated on what I said on the first page, but managed to miss where I said i'm a black female.How's that related when he said that afterwards in a different line of conversation?
It's madness isn't it?
Making fun of various groups - black people, LGBT, women, and so on - is fine because it's "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" and "PC CULTURE IS RUINING LIVES". However, this "Dear White People" nonsense is offensive and it's promoting genocide. Unacceptable from Netflix. The alt-right hub on Facebook and Reddit has been triggered. Genuinely in tears right now.
It's the same thing with anti-PC attitudes in general. "I want to be allowed to treat people like I please, and I want everyone to shut up about it, please respect my disrespect for others."It's madness isn't it?
The Alt-Right insist that we should be able to "say it how it is" when it comes to minorities, but you dare call white people racist, or even group them as "white people" suddenly they're triggered.
I don't even see what could possibly be offensive about saying "Dear White People", patronising sure but offensive? Racist? Nah
Sorry, I didn't see you bookmark your gender and ethnicity on the first page.she* it's amazing how you're fixated on what I said on the first page, but managed to miss where I said i'm a black female.
And once again - I've said numerous times in this thread, but I will reiterate because I still don't think you understand me.
Racism by definition means that anybody in the world can be racist - you're happy with that, yes?
Outside of a definition in a book and the practical application of racism in the real world, if you are a person of colour the racism you experience is different to the racism a white person experiences especially in the western world. Therefore a blanket statement doesn't paint the whole picture and only minimises the effect of racism to the people who feel it the most.
Does that make sense or are you still finding fault with that statement?
Villain clearly said that it was racism, the problem is with your following sentence. While by definition racism is racism no matter who you are, the way it's going to impact your life will depend on your ethnicity.Sorry, I didn't see you bookmark your gender and ethnicity on the first page.
I'm fully comfortable with acknowledging racism is experienced in different ways by different people, I've mentioned this in several posts. But it's still racism. Trying to define it any differently doesn't help anyone and it only furthers this concept that white people can't be victimised through racism. What would racism look like towards white people right?
Again call me old fashioned but I think equality should be in it's absolute, not cherry picked.
You're missing the point completely and @vi1lain has already stated plenty of times that white people can experience racism.Sorry, I didn't see you bookmark your gender and ethnicity on the first page.
I'm fully comfortable with acknowledging racism is experienced in different ways by different people, I've mentioned this in several posts. But it's still racism. Trying to define it any differently doesn't help anyone and it only furthers this concept that white people can't be victimised through racism. What would racism look like towards white people right?
Again call me old fashioned but I think equality should be in it's absolute, not cherry picked.
I don't think I or anyone else is saying that white people can't be victimised, and i'm certainly not cherry picking because i'm asking relates to either history or statistics.Sorry, I didn't see you bookmark your gender and ethnicity on the first page.
I'm fully comfortable with acknowledging racism is experienced in different ways by different people, I've mentioned this in several posts. But it's still racism. Trying to define it any differently doesn't help anyone and it only furthers this concept that white people can't be victimised through racism. What would racism look like towards white people right?
Again call me old fashioned but I think equality should be in it's absolute, not cherry picked.
Is that cheap sarcasm? A suggestion of playing the race card? If so, you've undermined practically any argument you might make.Sorry, I didn't see you bookmark your gender and ethnicity on the first page.
Yes it is. When someone points out that I haven't noticed they were a black female on a thread where they hadn't mentioned they were a black female prior to the comment I quoted, because I was 'fixated' on the first page. I think it's in order, and not at all referencing it as using the race card. Agreed?Is that cheap sarcasm? A suggestion of playing the race card? If so, you've undermined practically any argument you might make.
This was the post about mid way down the page, which I stated it.How many ways can black people actively discriminate against white people?
How many ways can white people actively discriminate against black people?
Are they the same?
Nobody is denying that discrimination can effect everyone, but discrimination you may face as a white man, versus discrimination I may face as a black woman aren't the same.
3 posts after this was the original post you were referring to.Read the definition of racism, racism is racism and it doesn't matter if the perp is black,white yellow or brown.
2 posts further down, this was the post you took issue with.So a book definition overrides actual events and instances of racism?
What you say about me?People really love getting offended.
No you are right, I apologise you had mentioned it, I'm not sure how I missed it originally (and then on a second reading allbeit a skin read!).This was the post about mid way down the page, which I stated it.
3 posts after this was the original post you were referring to.
2 posts further down, this was the post you took issue with.
And I only mentioned it because you said that you had read the chain of comments that led up to that moment, so how did you not see what I said as part of that chain? @ivaldo