Author Topic: is it racist to argue in favor of...  (Read 5117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7620
    • View Profile
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #120 on: September 18, 2018, 03:16:39 AM »
It's about the same effect as when a woman calls rape when there is no rape.

So, other than one gif, no one's going to comment on this sexist BS?
Is it not true that it hurts the movement when a Women Calls for rape when there is no rape? Because even if it happens rarely, they get exposure in the media and drawn out of proportions, and used by people opposing the #metoo movement.

Also, explain to me how is it what I said sexists?

Injecting the idea that women falsify rape charges often enough for this metaphor to be relevant is sexist. If you're insistent using rape charges as a metaphor you'd be more statistically relevant to say "When men accuse women of lying to deny their experiences of being raped, and how that undermines men's ability to be taken seriously on the topic."

But, no, you chose to go with the sexist lie that women lie about rape in numbers to undermine any rape allegation. That's the sexism. But I doubt you'll agree, and instead you and others will double-down and rage about it.
Wow, you intermediately characterize me in such a way assuming that my comment was completely intentional in the precise way without even taking into account the context or even if I am a person who would double-down and rage about it. Even after reading later on that I back down on some of the things I have said on the topic.

You are correct. The comparison is not equal because the frequencies are not the same. So I apologize for using said comparison. The situation in which women falsify rape charges are Considerably rare, and I recognize that.  My argument was that assuming that something is racist when it is not and having a public outcry about it, hurts the civil rights movement, which does not compare to my ill used metaphor.

And no, I did not deliberately used the example to undermine any rape allegation.

This is a learning opportunity. When I run over someone's foot with my cart, I don't do it intentionally, but it still hurts them and I should still apologize for accidentally running over someone's foot. If they said "Hey, you ran over my foot!" then the response from me should be "I'm sorry I ran by over your foot, it was an accident." and to be more careful in the future.

In this instance you repeated a common talking point used to undermine reported rape and sexual assault. You didn't no intend to contribute to the culture or rape-apologism, and when it was pointed out it would have been a simple fix to say "Oh, that was no my intention, yeah I can see how that was in bad taste, I'm sorry" and be more careful about invoking sexual assault analogies in the future. For some reason when we hurt someone with our words we don't do this though, insisting that it was our perogative to run over someone's foot and they should just wear thicker shoes. Thank you for acknowledging that even though it wasn't intentional, you did cause a form of harm.

Similarly, back to the Sony example it's likely as not that the execs aren't intentionally discriminating against black actors. It's the bigotry of low expectations at work, and since you learned that nobody likes black actors and that black breakouts are a couple, you keep sustaining that bigotry unintentionally. It's still helpful to call attention to the harm, even if it wasn't intentional.  The issue with the false alarms isn't that people see them and begin to doubt, it's that there are groups actively pushing the narrative of false alarms in order to diminish or discredit the real problem. The way to combat that is by supporting the evidential issues and talking about the systemic problems because no matter how hard we work we will never stop the false alarms. There will always be someone on Tumblr or Facebook who is so outrageous that they hurt the movement, but short of taking away their access to the internet there's nothing to do about it.

Offline JohnM

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
    • View Profile
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #121 on: September 18, 2018, 05:30:47 AM »
I haven't read all of this thread but I am interested in asking a similar question on diversity and would appreciate other's views.

There's a fiction show I'm watching (The Bodyguard BBC) and as usual, The BEEB make a good effort to have a diverse cast - all well and good. However, I think they've done overdone it in this series to the extent that the situation becomes unrealistic and which takes something away from the quality of the show.

without going into detail everyone in senior management of the police is either a woman or black of a variation thereof. There's not an overweight ginger in sight.

In one sense it's a fiction show so they can do whatever the hell they want but these sort of thrillers only pull you in if there is in some sense it's believable..

Any thoughts?
My thoughts are that it is a really good thing.
As I said elsewhere, I think it is the unremarked upon assumptions of a show that sink into the psyche of culture at large and finding a way to cast more talent that would not otherwise be seen (especially on the BBC which has had criticism for focusing on mostly white period dramas) is a good thing in my opinion and its very possible that these were all just the best people who auditioned.

There are people of colour at all levels of the police so I dont see why its a stretch to imagine that there may be clusters here and there due to statistical weirdness.
Failing that, just pretend its a dystopia where affirmative action has pushed white people out of management.

Yes it is London so it would be more expected there and the show is doing well in the ratings so my criticism isn't in anyway being felt.