Sugar is clearly a racist. Typical Yiddo.
People's willingness to label others racist at every opportunity is one of the worst things about society today. That and twitter. Although the two go hand in hand. Put your time and effort in to something worthwhile instead of trawling twitter to find things to get offended by.
I fully support this idea.Lol some people in this thread don’t think it’s racist.
Can these posters be given a 'maybe racist?' tagline like the 'City supporter' and 'Liverpool supporter'.
Sugar is clearly a racist. Typical Yiddo.
Completely agree & making a shit joke about someone's appearance doesn't make you a racist in my book. It becomes a matter of your personal definition of "racism" though & each is entitled to their view of that.There is a difference between stereotypes and racism, but it's a fine line. I don't think that tweet was racist in an EDL kind of way, as it wasn't aggressive or hateful, but it certainly is the kind of material racists use casually. Just because its sly racism doesn't make it ok.
That sketch show is 20 years old, i doubt it'd get created today. It was also created, edited and directed by white people and aired to a majority white audience.
Genuine racists - as in, people who actually believe in racial supremacy - are quite rare (and usually quite insane).He should have known better than to tweet that though & I'm astounded that he didn't. Maybe he was pissed or is he not as intelligent as thought? Not "racist" in my book but incredibly stupid nonetheless.
Disparaging generalisation/judgement definitely but genuinely racist? Depends on your own definition.
Definitely, just seems that "racist" seems like such an extreme & strong term to throw about that it has now become self-defeating. People seem to get disparaged when seemingly everything is labelled racist. You get arguments between the so-called SJWs & Anti-PC crowds when both really know that it's somewhere in between "racist" & "not racist".Genuine racists - as in, people who actually believe in racial supremacy - are quite rare (and usually quite insane).
The term has taken on a less extreme meaning, though, as we all know - or should know. So, insisting (as the poster above seemingly does) on the most extreme interpretation is pointless, not to say silly (or sinister, even - depending on who does it).
HahaEveryone knows you can't be racist unless you drag a black man out of a wooden shed by a rope around his neck. Everything else is people just being snowflakes.
Great idea! Especially for the black people in this thread with the differing viewpoint as well! I mean, they all use the dreaded word with each other in music; so if the cap fits...Lol some people in this thread don’t think it’s racist.
Can these posters be given a 'maybe racist?' tagline like the 'City supporter' and 'Liverpool supporter'.
You know black people can be racist right?Great idea! Especially for the black people in this thread with the differing viewpoint as well! I mean, they all use the dreaded word with each other in music; so if the cap fits...
This one takes the biscuit, literally.People's willingness to label others racist at every opportunity is one of the worst things about society today. That and twitter. Although the two go hand in hand. Put your time and effort in to something worthwhile instead of trawling twitter to find things to get offended by.
100% this. Knuckle dragging degenerates see stuff like this and Trump (obviously a more extreme example) and it makes them think it's OK.People in positions of power or influence who use racist language embolden those who aren't. He should be off the air.
As someone who isn't white, I'd be cautious making it, in case it did cause offence. Personally I wouldn't be offended by it, but I'd err on the side of caution to avoid offence. Mind you I'm not an artist and comedy is not my medium. It's easy for me to say so.That's an interesting theory, & it's one I agree with btw. But playing devil's advocate here, let me ask the question, why not ? It's white people making fun of other white people. No racism at all, just a bit of fun & social parody. So why would anyone get offended ?
Wasn't GGM made by Asians? They were taking the piss out of themselves as much as English people.As someone who isn't white, I'd be cautious making it, in case it did cause offence. Personally I wouldn't be offended by it, but I'd err on the side of caution to avoid offence. Mind you I'm not an artist and comedy is not my medium. It's easy for me to say so.
Personal taste comes into it too. I'm Asian and the BBC made 2 comedy shows with Asian stereotypes. Goodness gracious me and citizen Khan. I wasn't offended by either but goodness gracious me was the superior show by far. It was just better comedy.
Mind you I enjoy South Park and cartmans racism, but I would never express such views myself, especially in the public domain.
South Park is slightly different in that it's a racist character and he's generally portrayed as a piece of shit.As someone who isn't white, I'd be cautious making it, in case it did cause offence. Personally I wouldn't be offended by it, but I'd err on the side of caution to avoid offence. Mind you I'm not an artist and comedy is not my medium. It's easy for me to say so.
Personal taste comes into it too. I'm Asian and the BBC made 2 comedy shows with Asian stereotypes. Goodness gracious me and citizen Khan. I wasn't offended by either but goodness gracious me was the superior show by far. It was just better comedy.
Mind you I enjoy South Park and cartmans racism, but I would never express such views myself, especially in the public domain.
It's a joke predicated on certain elements of appearance held in common. In this case between beach sellers and the members of the team. Precisely what is held in common is irrelevant. It is equivalent to body painters painted up as a lion and someone saying "i recognise you from my safari in Africa". Neither body paint nor Safaris in Africa are diminished in any way. I am not sure what you think is being stereotyped, nor how stereotyping is racist, nor where the discrimination.
is.
A stereotype doesn't entail an attack. If someone stereotypes most British as white, or most British as posh, or most British dressed in suits, nothing is being discriminated against. Neither whiteness nor poshness nor suits are being attacked, nor is anyone who is British but is not white, posh, or wears suits.
Racism is prejudice, hate or discrimination based on race. Lets not blur the lines and diminish the power of the word by misusing it. Sugar made his joke with complete blindness to race, in the absence of anything resembling an attack, and race was only coincidental to the comparison.
Feck me, who are these people seriously?Much in the same way people used to - & still do - tell jokes about the Irish being thick, Scousers being work-shy thieves, Jews being tight & thrifty with money etc, etc. Applying a negative slant to one's country, place of birth, or religion, isn't racist, it's blatant stereotyping. Too many on here are having problems getting past the fact that the Senegal players are black & have wrongly associated Sugar's crap joke as a dig at their colour rather than their origin.
This isn't epistemology or a logics exercise. We live in a social world where our actions and words have implications and many of them we have our own responsibility for.Disagree. The points I already made counter the points you've made in your reply.
"implicitly but persistently associating color with various low status traits, such as poverty, lack of education and criminality..." ... is your inference made through your mental filters, something Sugar has no control over. Sugar only mentioned appearance, just as in my example the joker only mentioned the bankers voice.
The tangent of poverty and status is entirely developed in your own mind. You have to make those non sequitur inferences and then believe that somehow being low status or impoverished is to blame on the character of the low status or impoverished for it to be insulting rather than just a reference to circumstance. There are two lines you must pass, and neither can be justified.
" But I bet you he is one of those who, when he sees a black man in the street at night, is likely to think "probably a criminal of some sort" and cross the street."
He might cross the street but he wouldn't have needed to think "probably a criminal of some sort" to do that. If you believe there is even a 1% chance of being mugged you cross the street, even though you are 99% sure that he isn't a criminal. This response would only be prudent, not racist. If you know you have more chance of being attacked by a Pitbull than a Labrador, you avoid avoid Pitbulls more than Labradors to the extent that they're more likely to attack you. 5% more likely to attack = 5% more likely to avoid. It is nothing against Pit Bulls, it is just prudence based on statistical data, and no analysis needs to be done on why they're more likely to attack to reach that conclusion.
Is it because they're Pit Bulls, or is it because Pit Bull owners tend to be more aggressive and it is mirrored by the dog? (nature of the breed vs circumstance). The reason is irrelevant when you are just trying to preserve yourself. Jumping to the conclusion that avoidance must be based on ideological hatred of Pitbulls is just needlessly slanderous against the character of the person who is only trying to preserve himself.
For real, the likes of Shapiro and Jordan Peterson have permanently poisoned reasonable discourse with their semantical gymnastics. They rely almost entirely on obfuscation and open ended word play so the only way to cut through their bullshit is by stripping their arguments down to their most simple form like so:This is what happens when you get a bunch of shit heels watching people like Ben Shapiro. Completely asinine semantic debates design to “win” surface level arguments without any knowledge or context behind them whatsoever.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
People's willingness to label others racist at every opportunity is one of the worst things about society today. That and twitter. Although the two go hand in hand. Put your time and effort in to something worthwhile instead of trawling twitter to find things to get offended by.
TLW said:Read his autobiography years ago & he thought he was the bees knees for selling those amstrad computers even though he knew they wouldn't work & then spends all his time patronising The Apprentice graduates about business etiquette.
or perhaps 'racial gymnast'Lol some people in this thread don’t think it’s racist.
Can these posters be given a 'maybe racist?' tagline like the 'City supporter' and 'Liverpool supporter'.
We're people who form beliefs based on reason and won't fold to pressure that makes no sense!Feck me, who are these people seriously?
Right, so you'd better stop imagining racism where there is none, so we can all get along! What you are effectively doing is forcing people (on pains of being labelled a racist themselves) to bypass their critical faculties and take offence at every tiny thing, so people end up thinking that everyone is an enemy, which is just perfect for dividing and conquering a multicultural society. You couldn't design a more subversive agenda than political correctness. And BTW, implicit in "political correctness" is the truth that is is not actual correctness. I prefer to be actually correct!This isn't epistemology or a logics exercise. We live in a social world where our actions and words have implications and many of them we have our own responsibility for.
It's definitely stupid and poor taste, but why do you not think it's racist?Don't get me wrong I don't think its racist. It's stupid and of poor taste.
Or you should maybe stop acting like you know what went through Sugar's head when he posted that. None of us really know, so we can do little more than judge the joke as it stands (or stood, as it were). Now, whether it was racist, racially insensitive or just a case of shitty stereotyping is largely down to semantics, and depends on what definition of racism you operate with. At the end of the day, it was a shit "joke" that linked Senegalese footballers and African migrants selling knick-knacks on the beach based solely on the colour of their skin. That is rightly going to be considered offensive.We're people who form beliefs based on reason and won't fold to pressure that makes no sense!
Right, so you'd better stop imagining racism where there is none, so we can all get along! What you are effectively doing is forcing people (on pains of being labelled a racist themselves) to bypass their critical faculties and take offence at every tiny thing, so people end up thinking that everyone is an enemy, which is just perfect for dividing and conquering a multicultural society. You couldn't design a more subversive agenda than political correctness. And BTW, implicit in "political correctness" is the truth that is is not actual correctness. I prefer to be actually correct!
Except that Sugar is a person of neither "power" nor "influence". Actually, nobody takes much notice of him...……….well. unless it's to be offended by something he does or says, then they take notice of him.People in positions of power or influence who use racist language embolden those who aren't. He should be off the air.
If he'd made that self-same comment about the England team, would it have been deemed racist?It's definitely stupid and poor taste, but why do you not think it's racist?
I actually don't think he meant it in the way it has come out, but it's still racist and someone in his position should know better.
He was a Lord and now he’s a Sir, how does he not have power and influence?Except that Sugar is a person of neither "power" nor "influence". Actually, nobody takes much notice of him...……….well. unless it's to be offended by something he does or says, then they take notice of him.
But, he didn’t.If he'd made that self-same comment about the England team, would it have been deemed racist?
GOAT-level mental gymnastics. The dog example was unnecessary though, let me fix it for you.Disagree. The points I already made counter the points you've made in your reply.
"implicitly but persistently associating color with various low status traits, such as poverty, lack of education and criminality..." ... is your inference made through your mental filters, something Sugar has no control over. Sugar only mentioned appearance, just as in my example the joker only mentioned the bankers voice.
The tangent of poverty and status is entirely developed in your own mind. You have to make those non sequitur inferences and then believe that somehow being low status or impoverished is to blame on the character of the low status or impoverished for it to be insulting rather than just a reference to circumstance. There are two lines you must pass, and neither can be justified.
" But I bet you he is one of those who, when he sees a black man in the street at night, is likely to think "probably a criminal of some sort" and cross the street."
He might cross the street but he wouldn't have needed to think "probably a criminal of some sort" to do that. If you believe there is even a 1% chance of being mugged you cross the street, even though you are 99% sure that he isn't a criminal. This response would only be prudent, not racist. If you know you have more chance of being attacked by a Pitbull than a Labrador, you avoid avoid Pitbulls more than Labradors to the extent that they're more likely to attack you. 5% more likely to attack = 5% more likely to avoid. It is nothing against Pit Bulls, it is just prudence based on statistical data, and no analysis needs to be done on why they're more likely to attack to reach that conclusion.
Is it because they're Pit Bulls, or is it because Pit Bull owners tend to be more aggressive and it is mirrored by the dog? (nature of the breed vs circumstance). The reason is irrelevant when you are just trying to preserve yourself. Jumping to the conclusion that avoidance must be based on ideological hatred of Pitbulls is just needlessly slanderous against the character of the person who is only trying to preserve himself.
If you know you have more chance of being attacked by a black person than a white person, you avoid avoid black people more than white people to the extent that they're more likely to attack you. 5% more likely to attack = 5% more likely to avoid. It is nothing against black people, it is just prudence based on statistical data, and no analysis needs to be done on why they're more likely to attack to reach that conclusion. Holy shit how many Ambien did I take?
This I disagree with, I think Jordan Peterson actually seems like a very intelligent bloke. That video displays him being willing to admit he was wrong when met with a compelling argument. That is surely a good thing?For real, the likes of Shapiro and Jordan Peterson have permanently poisoned reasonable discourse with their semantical gymnastics. They rely almost entirely on obfuscation and open ended word play so the only way to cut through their bullshit is by stripping their arguments down to their most simple form like so: