Study: You may be more racist than you think

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by LΩVE

No, "snowflake" is not exactly loaded, but the poster's point was that even had the word "honky" or "cracker" been used it would've been accepted because it is acceptable to use racial slurs against white people.

This is really not anyone's main point - indeed, I believe I used the term "accepted" somewhat tongue-in-cheek when pointing out that it's not "acceptable" (which is markedly different than "accepted") but it is indeed different and likely not nearly as "bad."

So you're kind of railing against a straw man of your own design here, I think - what am I missing?

Originally Posted by LΩVE

I agree that it would've caused little uproar for two reasons: first because "white people" who are educated are often so PC that they are afraid to react to that sort of behavior.

I'm not sure this is actually true in a macro sense - what makes you think this is widely the case?

Originally Posted by LΩVE

I am not ignorant of the difference in situations, I have just said, and stand by this, that it shouldn't be ok as it does upset people. If someone calls me a cracker they are calling me a racist pig, essentially, and I absolutely find that offensive. What I feel is that I should not have to simply accept that because I am white. I think it is ok to be offended and to say so.

Nobody has said you should accept such behavior.

Here's the thing: the issue wasn't so much the word "cracker" just like it wasn't the word "jigaboo" or anything with such direct connotation - it was:

Hayden's character transferred to a mostly-black school and they constantly referred to her as "white girl", "barbie", "vanilla latte", "frosted flake" and made comments like "looks like we're finally gettin some snow on campus", "coffee is like crack for white people"....

None of those are "racist" against white people - they are references to race, yes, but it simply cannot be implicitly racist to refer to race. That's the same cowering you're fighting against just paragraphs before! How this devolved into actual slurs is beyond me.

You know what? It's OK to make references to race. It's actually OK, at least in a certain environment or context, to make race-based jokes. Most people don't know the correct environments/contexts, which is where we run into a problem. If you want, I can actually walk through DrPhil's list of the three forms of racial animus, if you'd like, and give examples, because I think you're really painting with a broad brush here, to the point of getting angry about topics that aren't even central.

Originally Posted by LΩVE

The second reason it often causes no uproar is that some "white people" just aren't offended. This is of course a reasonable reaction as well. It just depends on the person. I guess what bothers me most about the issue is that it's somehow ok because it's "getting even". The concept of "sins of the father" isn't one I personally believe in. That just creates a never ending circle where a victim becomes a perpetrator and vice versa, each trying to top the other to "get even".

Other than Monet (who we have already discussed), I don't think anyone is a proponent of 'getting even' in any way.

However, I will go on record as saying that, in my opinion, the relationship does exist in the reverse: that is, if racial comments/jokes/references were indeed handled equally by both sides, we would be much closer to actual racial equality than if we simply decided to pretend such commentary didn't exist.

[LΩVE]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is really not anyone's main point - indeed, I believe I used the term "accepted" somewhat tongue-in-cheek when pointing out that it's not "acceptable" (which is markedly different than "accepted") but it is indeed different and likely not nearly as "bad."

So you're kind of railing against a straw man of your own design here, I think - what am I missing?



I'm not sure this is actually true in a macro sense - what makes you think this is widely the case?



Nobody has said you should accept such behavior.

Here's the thing: the issue wasn't so much the word "cracker" just like it wasn't the word "jigaboo" or anything with such direct connotation - it was:



None of those are "racist" against white people - they are references to race, yes, but it simply cannot be implicitly racist to refer to race. That's the same cowering you're fighting against just paragraphs before! How this devolved into actual slurs is beyond me.

You know what? It's OK to make references to race. It's actually OK, at least in a certain environment or context, to make race-based jokes. Most people don't know the correct environments/contexts, which is where we run into a problem. If you want, I can actually walk through DrPhil's list of the three forms of racial animus, if you'd like, and give examples, because I think you're really painting with a broad brush here, to the point of getting angry about topics that aren't even central.



Other than Monet (who we have already discussed), I don't think anyone is a proponent of 'getting even' in any way.

However, I will go on record as saying that, in my opinion, the relationship does exist in the reverse: that is, if racial comments/jokes/references were indeed handled equally by both sides, we would be much closer to actual racial equality than if we simply decided to pretend such commentary didn't exist.

Yes, I understand the difference. If I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

It is the case in the environment in which I grew up and in the one in which I work. If I implied that was the case for every person in said category, I did not mean to.

Not in those words, no, but it's been said more than once that, basically, "white people should keep their mouths shut" because as they have not been oppressed as a people they can't take these insults in the same way as can a minority. While I agree that that is actually true, I do not agree that should be accepted.

I realize the difference between those terms and stronger ones but as I have said, it applies to stronger ones as well. Had the term "cracker" been used I feel confident that it would still have caused no real reaction. The poster did say that maybe that wasn't the perfect example for what she was saying, but that she was making the point that, in general, even more charged racial slurs used against white people are not met with resistance, or at least not much.

I am talking in broads terms, but to a point. And it is not the topics that cause anger, it's the behavior of other posters.

I agree with your last paragraph.