Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on November 20, 2006, 05:58:20 pm
-
I'm assuming you all know what Seinfeld is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UomfLKQr57U
I especially like how they knock him down to size at the end by calling him washed up, which as far as I know is exactly right.
-
He is washed up :p
I'm surprised he didn't get the **** beat out if him.
-
Oh my
-
Listen...
You hear that...?
It sounded like a flush...
I think that's the sound of his career going down the toilet.
-
I don't care what he does. The man was a main character on Seinfeld-- that gives him a free pass to do whatever he wants, because Seinfeld was the greatest thing ever to grace our humble television sets.
-
Listen...
You hear that...?
It sounded like a flush...
I think that's the sound of his career going down the toilet.
Er, what career?
-
His career ended when sinfeld ended...
-
I loled
-
Was the shouting of "He's a nigger, he's a nigger !" part of his act, or was he already in mental breakdown mode ?
-
Keep in mind as well that there were two hecklers in the audience that were actually retorting with racial insults as well. But, yeah he went bonkers.
-
Heard a ton about this, but I never imagined there'd be video available for it. Ho shiz. :eek:
-
see ytmnd.com for added lols.
-
see ytmnd.com for added lulz.
Fixed. :D
-
:eek: :eek2: :wtf: Cosmo Kramer doesn't care about black people.
-
I really dont think he did it because he's a racist. Im of the opinion that the hecklers offended him so much (being as his life is standup, interrupting that is a deep insult) he wanted to hurt them back as much. When he started yelling and they laughed, it made him look for something that would upset them as much as he was, so he said nigger. And that did it.
-
Was the shouting of "He's a nigger, he's a nigger !" part of his act, or was he already in mental breakdown mode ?
breakdown.
-
Was the shouting of "He's a nigger, he's a nigger !" part of his act, or was he already in mental breakdown mode ?
breakdown.
Could have fooled me. I lol'd.
-
I found this blog quote interesting:
If you visit the iTunes Web site right now and preview the first five tracks from The Game's new CD, "Doctor's Advocate," you will hear the n-word about 15 times in a 2½ minute span. I bring this up because "Doctor's Advocate" was the top-selling CD in the country last week. The same week Michael Richards was blasted for his "I'm not a racist" racist rant.
Now, I'm not trying to call out The Game. In fact, I'm sure I used the word a couple of times last week myself. And I'm certainly not cutting Kramer any slack either. But I do find it's getting more and more difficult to intelligently celebrate a black man who repeatedly calls himself "n-----" and then chastise a white guy for saying "He's a n-----." It just seems like there's a disconnect there.
-
Gotta agree. I mean I understand that there's probably something of the mentality to turn the word/name/label into a badge of pride but not they way it's used among black people (at least what you see in films/news/live tv), and not when a white guy using it gets crucified. I certainly don't go round calling myself 'mick' or 'paddy'.
Coach Carter had it right. You will refer to me as SIR!
-
Gotta agree. I mean I understand that there's probably something of the mentality to turn the word/name/label into a badge of pride but not they way it's used among black people (at least what you see in films/news/live tv), and not when a white guy using it gets crucified. I certainly don't go round calling myself 'mick' or 'paddy'.
It's not the same. It's become popular to view racism as carrying equal weight in all directions, but the fact remains that blacks are the victims of a system of racial hegemony created by whites, and not the other way around. A white person who becomes the subject of racism can simply see a single angry person, but racism by a white person against a black person carries the weight of all the institutional oppression that has been, and continues to be, a defining factor in his or her social existence. The claim that racism exists on a level playing field is, in and of itself, a construct of racial hegemony.
-
However if we assume that no level playing field can exist, then we will never get there. The assumption must be that the field is level, because it has been made as level as it can be by the institutions that create it. You say it's not the same, but perhaps you missed out on the nativist sentiments that every history textbook in the country mentions. The current incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan, which began in the 1920s, took as its first credo "White, Native, Protestant Superiority". Anti-ethnic sentiment has been directed against blacks longest, certainly, and so had a chance to entrench itself more deeply than any other.
The field is as level as it's ever going to get. The problem that remains is the teams playing on it. The institution has been fixed as much as it can be. We're still waiting on the people.
-
The argument is not that equality can't exist; it's that moving towards this goal will require a paradigm shift on a scale much larger than is commonly thought. (This argument refers directly to ideas presented in the critical race theory of The Racial Contract by philosopher Charles Mills). The western world's conception of race is predicated on an idealized view of Enlightenment social contract theory. The textual body of social contract theory, advanced by the Founding Fathers, tells us that all people are equal, that justice is blind, etc. We, in turn, assume this to be the actual basis of our political systems by virtue of the fact that this is how they define themselves, which gives us the historical tools with which to marginalize the concept of race. Racial inequality is reduced to a social disease, a flawed implementation of a perfect system, perpetuated by bad or ignorant people such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis, when in actuality it is a political construct, which Mills refers to as the racial contract. The racial contract is a political manifestation of phenomenological othering, and not only is it more deeply rooted than the social contract, it is hidden by the social contract. The persistent notion of race as a failure within a fundamentally equal political system allows us the false luxury of gauging our society's "level" of racism by the amount of visible, unapologetic prejudice, and to assume that more minorities in positions of power is an indication of declining racism, when in fact the racism is merely sublimated. (Meanwhile, the fact that in 2001 the ratio of blacks to whites in prison was more than 5:1 (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/US_incrates2001.html) is not tangible enough to resonate).
Thus, the widespread claim that we have attained racial equality becomes the newest tool with which racism is denied. First it was the guise of altruistic intentions, then it was the need to preserve white culture, now it is simply the claim that racism has been solved. In all cases, the voices of those objectified and othered by the political contract are taken away. Even in contemporary academia, the philosophy of race is marginalized as a peripheral area of study, when it should be at the very center of political theory.
True progress requires that we acknowledge the fact that history is integral to the now, and that racial hegemony is a fundamental part of our history, formed by the same system of political philosophy that led to all western democracies. We have to deconstruct the illusion of whiteness as a source of objectivity and absolute standards. And we have to overcome the tendency to believe that racism begins and ends with the individual. The fact that I was raised to be tolerant of other races does not make me part of the solution. I must acknowledge the subjectivity of my perspective, I must be fully willing to give credence to claims by minorities that racism is an integral part of their experience, and I must be ready to look to our most sacred institutions for the source of this racism.
(If you couldn't tell, I highly recommend Charles Mills.)
-
In the UK we have a thing which is called 'Positive Discrimination'.
This basically means that you could, for example, form a social group in a company called 'The West-Indian Women's Social Club' and only allow West Indian women into said group, however, creating a group called 'White British Women's Social Club' and applying similar rules would be considered as discrimination.
I'm still very much in two minds about the whole thing to be honest. For me, at least, the important word isn't 'Positive or Negative', it's actively defining borders between people by skin colour, religion etc.
-
Gotta agree. I mean I understand that there's probably something of the mentality to turn the word/name/label into a badge of pride but not they way it's used among black people (at least what you see in films/news/live tv), and not when a white guy using it gets crucified. I certainly don't go round calling myself 'mick' or 'paddy'.
It's not the same. It's become popular to view racism as carrying equal weight in all directions, but the fact remains that blacks are the victims of a system of racial hegemony created by whites, and not the other way around. A white person who becomes the subject of racism can simply see a single angry person, but racism by a white person against a black person carries the weight of all the institutional oppression that has been, and continues to be, a defining factor in his or her social existence. The claim that racism exists on a level playing field is, in and of itself, a construct of racial hegemony.
I'd like to just say - you're talking bull****. Your proceeding from the mindset that all white people share a collective responsibility for the racial discrimination committed by their ancestors...
Carry on.
-
It's become popular to view racism as carrying equal weight in all directions, but the fact remains that blacks are the victims of a system of racial hegemony created by themselves, and not by whites.
Fixed.
-
I'd like to just say - you're talking bull****. Your proceeding from the mindset that all white people share a collective responsibility for the racial discrimination committed by their ancestors...
Carry on.
That was my initial reaction when I was introduced to this area of philosophy, but it's not about guilt. That's always the first counter-argument to critical race theory and it's an oversimplification. Read my previous post-- race is a political construct with inequality at its very center, and whiteness was shaped by this process as a supposed absolute frame of reference. Whites as a group do not see a racial element to our experience, and thus we conclude that by treating everyone equally we are making racism a thing of the past. But the belief in colorblindness is a part of the white racial experience, because the power of whiteness is its inherent inability to identify itself within the very system it created. With the best intentions at heart, we ask those who have been objectified and othered by the racial contract, "Why can't we all just be people?" and what we don't realize is that we're really saying, "Why can't we all just be white?" It's not about feeling bad for what our ancestors did; it's about acknowledging that the common perceptions of race are still rooted in colonialism.
It's become popular to view racism as carrying equal weight in all directions, but the fact remains that blacks are the victims of a system of racial hegemony created by themselves, and not by whites.
Fixed.
A group cannot impose racial hegemony on itself, because it doesn't see itself as a group until it is externally defined as such. Whites dictated the terms of race, and whites imposed these terms on the groups that they defined, because colonialism necessitated it. Again, the purpose of this is not for whites to whip themselves and for minorities to have a pity party, but race has to be understood in terms of its white colonialist origins if it is to be dealt with.
-
Your arguments supporting your claim are incomplete. It was, after all, not the colonial system which contributed the primary role of the current racial issues. In fact, the original colonists had almost nothing to do with it. It was only until the industrial growth of New England closer to the time of the United States when the slave trade began to take foothold. Thru the years, there has been segregation and isolation by whites. Eventually, after the civil rights movement, things were going in the right direction... And then affirmative action came along, and it caused more damage to King's "dream" than anyone is willing to acknowledge. Now, it is not the whites that are pulling the race card, but the blacks.
And as for "colorblindness", it's an idea, not an occurrence. I see color, and anybody who claims otherwise is a liar. However, that doesnt mean I care about Joe white any more than Joe black. As far as I'm concerned, they can both burn in hell. Before I'll respect anybody, they must show me first that they are worthy of said respect. I dont care if he's the ****ing pope, respect is earned thru deeds of trust and sacrifice, not given by default because of some civil "right".
-
Now this is an interesting debate, for my part, I'd never really mentally seperated the concept of the Slave Trade with the concept of Segregation, despite the fact they are two totally different things. It's opened my eyes to that already.
Segregation between 'Serfs' and 'Nobles' has been an inherent part of society for an extremely long time, I'm wondering how much segregation had to do with skin colour, or whether skin colour was merely an excuse to maintain (or to mentally place yourself higher in) the Feudal system that humanity adopts naturally in the first place.
While it's true that some terrible things have been said about non-whites by whites, those same things have been said through the ages, about white lower classes by white upper classes.
I wonder whether the same sort of behaviour was prevalent in areas of Africa before European influence ever appeared on the scene?
-
While it's true that some terrible things have been said about non-whites by whites, those same things have been said through the ages, about white lower classes by white upper classes.
Hit the nail on the head IMHO. Racism is just a special case of classism.
I wonder whether the same sort of behaviour was prevalent in areas of Africa before European influence ever appeared on the scene?
Every culture has had slavery as a natural part of the social system for the vast majority of history. Before the American slave trade, the most well-known offenders on the African continent were Muslim invaders from Arabia. Never mind the fact that slavery was the inevitable outcome of African intertribal warfare, or the fact that many of the slaves who came to America were slaves in Africa first (whom traders preferred to buy rather than kidnap).
-
Your arguments supporting your claim are incomplete. It was, after all, not the colonial system which contributed the primary role of the current racial issues. In fact, the original colonists had almost nothing to do with it. It was only until the industrial growth of New England closer to the time of the United States when the slave trade began to take foothold. Thru the years, there has been segregation and isolation by whites. Eventually, after the civil rights movement, things were going in the right direction... And then affirmative action came along, and it caused more damage to King's "dream" than anyone is willing to acknowledge. Now, it is not the whites that are pulling the race card, but the blacks.
You're just answering "no" to what I've been saying. I have (I hope) made it abundantly clear that one of the primary assertions of critical race theory is that contemporary issues of race can be traced to the onset of European colonialism. Hence the concept of the racial contract as something more foundational to western politics than even the Enlightenment social contract. Whites set the terms for the politics of race when they created the politics of race; the paradigm hasn't been turned on its head just because the specific issues are different. Specifically, the "reverse racism" argument against affirmative action presumes that without affirmative action, race would play no role in hiring/college admission. This assumption completely ignores the fact that since emancipation, the most powerful agent of racial inequality has been economic oppression, and that is still the most outwardly visible element of racism today. Affirmative action is an attempt to compensate for the strong divisions of race along socioeconomic lines. However, this does not mean that I think affirmative action is effective, and I am in fact very much torn on the issue for more than one reason-- mainly that it doesn't reach the poor minorities it's attempting to help.
Now this is an interesting debate, for my part, I'd never really mentally seperated the concept of the Slave Trade with the concept of Segregation, despite the fact they are two totally different things. It's opened my eyes to that already.
And that's an important distinction. We're not talking about slavery here; we're talking about race. Africans enslaved each other, yes, but they didn't establish the political system of race. And that's the concept that affects our world today. It's necessary to separate race from slavery to fully understand how deeply racism is rooted.
Segregation between 'Serfs' and 'Nobles' has been an inherent part of society for an extremely long time, I'm wondering how much segregation had to do with skin colour, or whether skin colour was merely an excuse to maintain (or to mentally place yourself higher in) the Feudal system that humanity adopts naturally in the first place.
While it's true that some terrible things have been said about non-whites by whites, those same things have been said through the ages, about white lower classes by white upper classes.
I wonder whether the same sort of behaviour was prevalent in areas of Africa before European influence ever appeared on the scene?
There is an important difference. Implicit in the concept of hierarchy is the idea that each stratum is part of a whole. The classes of European civilization may have been in bitter conflict, but it was conflict within a shared world. In contrast, white colonialism framed its conflict not as a clash between a higher and lower group of people, but between humans and quasi-humans, history and prehistory. Enlightenment philosophers such as Rousseau and Hegel wrote extensively on topics of the human struggle for autonomy, but only in the context of white historical events. When the Haitians began their fight for independence, citing the very same philosophical precedents that fueled the American Revolution, the thinkers that we now regard as architects of freedom were all silent. They didn't even make any pretense of consistency. From their standpoint, their ideas were suddenly inapplicable, because Haiti was not part of its own civilization; it was a "dark place" to which civilization had to be exported.