I don't really see the point of these videos as the outcome of this exercise can really depend on where this sort of polling is done. I get what they are trying to convey, but it's too simplistic.

If you did this very same exercise in my neighbourhood, I'd wager good money most of the visible minority students would be stepping forward as well. There are a lot of *very* well-off visible minority families in this area. Do this exercise again in an affluent black-community - same outcome? I don't think so.

Also why are no other ethnicities represented? Where are the Muslim, Indian, and Asian teens? Again, in my area and across Toronto, many of these minority groups have children that are thriving. Do they have privilege too? My perspective as a Canadian might be a little different than someone from the US but this topic feels too complex and nuanced to be reduced to a simple metaphor.

In all seriousness though, here's my thoughts on the matter: I believe the n-word is used by most black people ironically. It's an attempt to reclaim power over the word that was used for so long--including today--to oppress them.

The thing is, there is precedent for this ironic use. Many in the gay community use the word "bitch" in an affection and jesting way to other members, but it takes on a completely different tone when a heterosexual person--even one who has a large circle of gay friends--tries to use it in a similar manner towards a gay person.

The thing is that this kind of ironic language usage is self-deprecating. As a member of the black or gay community, you're using a derogatory term that could just as easily be applied to you by somebody else.

Self-deprecating humor of this kind doesn't work so well when you're not a member of the group. It just comes across as punching down, especially in the case of privileged group members like middle-class white kids who will likely never know what it is like to be an "other" in their country of citizenship no matter how much they may sympathize (although as "minority" groups continue to eclipse the Caucasian population maybe within my lifetime they might actually start to experience it).

I mean, how hard is it for non-black people to not call someone an n-word? Very few black people are okay with it. The whiny " b-b-but they use the word all the time" excuse just reeks of entitlement to me.

But what do I know. I'm just some dumb white kid living in a foreign country where I can be pulled over by cops because I look different from the rest of the population and jailed for not immediately providing ID (unlike Japanese people who are legally not required to carry ID at all).

That's a fair point, Eric. I can't say that I know enough about minority group racism to judge.

So yeah, I'm happy to amend my statement that to "not all republicans are racist, but pretty much all white supremacists/nazis are republican".

Huh, still doesn't read great, does it?

Oh, and @worm, I agree. There is a perception of "anti-white social engineering by the left". Of course, it's complete fucking nonsense, but hey, no reason to let facts get in the way, right?

"David Duke, a major KKK leader of some sort, was a Democrat in Congress."

If you're going to post bullshit, you might want to post something that isn't trivially disprovable by 5 seconds googling. He was never a congressman, instead having failed several attempts at both Democratic and Republican presidential primaries. He did become a state representative for Louisiana, but that was as a Republican (he also lost a governship battle, again as a Republican).

I'm not seeking to demonise Republicans here. I don't agree with them most of the time, but at a point, they were a relatively sane political party, before becoming the international laughing stock they are today.

The problem is that they are now beholden to Trump and almost all of them are spineless fucks with a few notable exceptions.

Do you think that is true (in America) with the racism that exists in minority groups(generally between minority groups i assume)? I've always just assumed that most minority groups lean left (in America) and the racist that are part of those group would also identify as being left. I assume if you're a white racist you are most likely a republican but don't think that would hold true for racism in minority groups. Although i really don't know.

Now im curious to know which cultures/groups in the states have racist views towards other cultures/groups (excluding white America).

Off to watch something funny. My fragile (anxiety ridden) mind can only take so much of the ugliness, and the last few days have been pretty ugly

So

I don't know how it is in the states, but in this country if you want to go through gender reassignment you will get it for free on the NHS. Its a long road, it isn't easy, they make it hard etc, but like anything else that poses a risk to somebodies health it is paid for by the state. I feel like a lot of people consider reassignment a sort of frivolous sex thing but being unable to escape the body in which you are born is, you know, desperately depressing. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that surgery and hormone treatment are potentially lifesaving, and certainly greatly improve the quality of life in most cases.

Couple of things I don't understand - Is this the military saying they will no longer pay for treatments associated with gender reassignment, or is this a blanket ban on transgender men and women from serving in the military? One wonders why the military can't spend even a fraction of the amount is spends on toys on its servicemen/women...

Anyhoo. It's a distraction. Not trying to suggest that it is a minor thing for those affected, but I really think this is to divert the left and win back support from the right. It sucks dreadfully that a minority group is again used as target for political maneuvering and it is worthy of resistance but I can't help but feel we are playing into their hand by doing so.

@bobknight33 I pity you.

For those not in the know, Canada apparently just passed a bill that makes "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” legally prosecutable.

i.e. calling someone He or She when they would prefer xe, ve, per, ae, zie (or anything else they care to make up), that is now legally actionable.

I suspect however the reality of the situation may be overblown. Some people are claiming it's now a hate crime which seems a little misleading.
Though that it is technically somewhat correct, the law really just added gender identity to the existing list of classes protected from "hate speech". That is to say, a legal offence predicated on apparent prejudice or hatred towards a specific minority group.

Now the idea of hate speech laws themselves is another can of worms (I have my misgivings). But as far as I can tell the law isn't really about casual use of pronouns, so much as institutional prejudice against said groups, or extremist rhetoric ("Kill all the queers" or whathaveyou).

Still strikes me as questionable, but it's the precedent of having hate speech law in general that concerns me (or rather the ripe potential for misuse).

IDK, complicated issue.

Edit: To be clear that's context for the joke, not the content

The UK has done a much better job in handling the situation than the US has, it seems, though it has had more time to do so than the southern US. I don't think they achieved it by implementing systemic racism in the opposite direction, though. And let's be clear, even though we may feel justified in kicking out higher achieving students to replace them with a quota-satisfying minority group, that is systemically racist, the very thing we are trying to abolish. It is a clear example of committing a wrong to hopefully achieve a right. And it will never feel like anything short of racism to the individual student that gets short changed.

So let's say that it works, and black folk begin to integrate more successfully into the encompassing community, and the encompassing communities don't end up resenting them for the racist laws that are helping them to do s . Will we ever be remove these racist rules? Or will we be arguing about an ever small statistical deviation somewhere? Furthermore, all of the people that are unjustly damaged by these new racist rules (ie. Ashley), won't they then be due reparations in the future too? Who would pay those? Where would it end? Would it end?

I just doubt that more racism is the cure for racism.

Historically Islam didn't really engage in forced conversions, partly because under both the Caliphate and the Ottoman empire the tax break given to Muslims would've been problematic if given to the entire population (this tax break is the flip side of the "extort money" that you refer to).

Also speaking historically, Jews were much safer in Muslim lands than Christian since Christians tended to massacre them on a fairly regular basis until 1945 and despite what you've heard most Muslims are fairly tolerant. The same applies to minority Christian sects, the Nestorians for instance had to flee to Persia in 489 AD, and I seem to recall another minority group who fled England to Holland and then to the Americas (perhaps you've heard of them?).

I used to think that Buddhists and Hindus were more tolerant than the Abrahamic religions, but unfortunately I've since learned that I only thought so due to ignorance.

Because it's the decent thing to do. Giving another group a right that you have has no effect on you at all. You aren't being oppressed by them gaining rights and it takes no more effort for society to allow them these rights.

The question is better put 'why should society treat a minority group differently to the majority of the population?'

@lantern53

But seriously, cops are racist.

Yes Black Cops, Asian Cops, Hispanic Cops.

Being a police officer makes you racist.
Because the culture of law enforcements preys on the poor and minority groups.

So if you're told as a rookie "Go to the poor neighbor and patrol the streets"

Eventually you're going to come across desperate, uneducated people FROM ALL BACKGROUNDS.

You'll see gangsters, addicts, thieves, whores, etc.

If you mostly patrol poor black or white or asian or hispanic neighborhoods, you mostly begin to distrust any black or white or asian or hispanic person.

Being a cop eventually makes you distrust everyone who looks a certain way.

Those stereotypes about all black males being scary savage thugs starts to ring true.

So, it seems you are saying that racism only counts if it's systemic and endemic, but not when it's only on an individual scale?
As a white boy, I WAS part of the "ethnic minority" (while simultaneously being part of the overall "ethnic majority"), I lived in East Palo Alto when it was the murder capital of the US and over 90% "minority". I repeatedly encountered racism against whites in a community that was predominantly black. Does that not count because they only held power in their community (where I lived)? Does it not count because I eventually moved? I don't understand...why would that not be "real scale" racism by a minority group against an "ethnic majority"?
It seems to me like you are stretching to say institutional racism is only one sided because it's MOSTLY one sided.
I feel like most of your examples are really more about (perceived) social/financial status than race....not entirely but mostly.

Idk. Phelps et al took homophobia to a whole new level. It's easy to rail against such a comic book villain. Disagreeing with Phelps, even on his stance on homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean you still don't have a mostly negative attitude towards homosexuality. I'm thinking of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd. I think Huckabee and his ilk fit into this sort of "homophobia lite". They dress their bigotry up in platitudes and are likely to find support from some or the same people who might have decried Phelps. One might look towards Russia in the run up to Sochi. There you see the same sort of stance, where they enact policy that strips gays of their rights whilst insisting that its not borne of homophobia and is merely to protect children from paedophiles. I do not doubt their sincerity in this belief - most homophobes don't identify themselves as homophobes.

Ultimately I think these extreme undiluted views create an illusion of overwhelming support for gay rights. Perhaps the publicity raised a debate about homosexuality/phobia, but that debate still had to be fought and won by gay rights activists, not through us all uniting against a sort of shill.

I certainly hope things continue the way they have been. Still, there are parts of the world which seem to be regressing in this regard (see Russia again -.-). I have a feeling that rallying against any minority group is always going to be an effective political tactic, especially if it's done under the guise of protecting children from sexual abuse or preserving "family values".

I can't believe I'm actually walking into this, but although the number of white welfare recipients is nearly equal to the number black welfare recipients, the overall number of blacks in America is about 6 times less than whites which makes it a much higher percentage of people in the black community receiving welfare. So issues of welfare have racial connotations. (and not to mention the fact that over 60% of people receiving welfare belong to some minority group)

And thank you for inspiring others to vote against your candidate with your last remark. Keep spreading "your truth" son, it can only help my side.>> ^bobknight33:

Race card? There are just as much poor whites on welfare as blacks.
Democrats pull the race card all the time.
What game is being played?
Chris is such a fool. If Obama was born in America why has he spent millions to stop others from seeing a bonafide original document?

@Yogi 2012!

Seriously, so long as one's behaviour/attitude/style does not actively hurt someone, who cares if it's considered "stereotypical"? The pressure to conform goes both ways, and is bad in both cases, but it's even more sad when it comes from and is directed towards members of a minority group.

In other news, I nominate this video for "Best Title Award".

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}