Racism in America.... Is it worse now after the 2016 election?

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

@Renegade7 I’m not sure what you are, but on my iPhone it appears that you’re some dark bringer of death.  Maybe I shouldn’t **** with you too much...

 

 

It's burgundy and gold, holding a cowboys helmet.  

[Kosher Ham]

35 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Maybe if we set it up like a game show, and the correct answer nets a prize 

Play a stupid game,win a stupid prize. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

24 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Make poll private and have people guess?  If a poster's race is guessed by someone, they have to come in to confirm it, no "I heard" none of that, even if we know.  If ya'll want to do points, you only get one if poster verified and can't be someone that someone already guessed.  My concern is people jumping in with their interpretation of what race is, we should do that here instead.

Okay bit in addition to "American", I demand "adopted so who the hell knows" also be included. 

[Mr. Sinister]

 

 

57 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Make poll private and have people guess?  If a poster's race is guessed by someone, they have to come in to confirm it, no "I heard" none of that, even if we know.  If ya'll want to do points, you only get one if poster verified and can't be someone that someone already guessed.  My concern is people jumping in with their interpretation of what race is, we should do that here instead.

 

Oh wait, I'm totally bull****ting. This would be a disaster, on a number of levels. ?

 

[JSSkinz]

If I was a professor and was grading that Reveal article it would be an incomplete, so many flags poke out about the transaction they used as an example.

 

One of the things that can be done better is to explain and educate when you decline someone for a loan, some people will fix the issue, not many but some will so it's important to make sure they understand the why.

 

 

 

 

[Destino]

7 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

If I was a professor and was grading that Reveal article it would be an incomplete, so many flags poke out about the transaction they used as an example.

You're being generous.  A journalist should have no trouble meeting with a loan officer and maybe an underwriter to understand the loan process before writing that article.  It’s the very minimum amount of research you’d expect for an investigative article concerning loan decline rates.  

 

I am not a journalist, so I wouldn’t say I could have written a better article, but I could have directed them to better stories on how poor and minority communities are underserved by banks and real estate in general.  Though I think that in order to get a better understanding one would need to expand beyond just decline rates.  

 

7 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

One of the things that can be done better is to explain and educate when you decline someone for a loan, some people will fix the issue, not many but some will so it's important to make sure they understand the why.

Agreed.  It’s very easy as a loan officer to put together a simple chart of the basics and discuss where a potential future customer fell short.  I hated the part in the Reveal article where someone noted the loan officer stopped taking their calls.  That’s unprofessional and sadly, not uncommon.  It takes very little time to tell someone exactly what the issue is, and treating everyone with respect is important even if the loan can’t be done.  

[mcsluggo]

 

 

I'll tell you what.....   

 

 

 

 

.... this **** is getting serious!

 

 

 

 

 

[Riggo-toni]

[LD0506]

[mcsluggo]

16 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Gotta be honest here...while I certainly believe you, we all know that anecdotal evidence isn't reliable when you're talking about trying to get an actual scientific measure of something.

 

 

I think this is a good point. The racism (institutional, policy, and individual) of today is, generally, much less overt than it was in the past. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there are less people or institutions that are racist, or that the goal of many policies isn't as racist as in the past...just that the racism has been made more "palatable" and is couched in linguistic trickery and dog whistles (though now they're more like dog bullhorns). It changed from "Stop letting coloreds vote" to "Why are you talking about race? We just want to preserve the integrity of the voting process <trollface>". And there are plenty of other examples. It sort of reminds me of the creationist vs. intelligent design thing; they basically just repackaged it, but they're selling the same ****. 

 

IMO another consequence of this is that there are probably quite a number of people who have racist views, support racist policies, racist candidates etc but who believe they aren't actually racists because they use those dog whistles and their own internal excuse processes as a balm. That alone would make it really hard to get any sort of true scientific measure of how much of the US population is actually racist or whether racism is "worse" now than it was x number of years ago. I'm sure there are some who may look at that and conclude that this means the racism isn't as bad as in years past but I think that's a distinction without a difference as the underlying goals and beliefs are the same.

 

13 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I have a couple thoughts on this...not sure what they mean or how to present them...they are just thoughts: 

 

1) In some weird way, I almost prefer the more open and "hateful" racism. I mean, it's ugly and awful, but it's transparent and something that can be taken at face value. I'm not saying that I respect the ignorance or anything, but if I was on the receiving end, I'd rather be able to know what I'm fighting rather than deal with a pleasant smile and someone undermining me behind my back. It's weird, I know. 

 

2) Someone earlier brought up a good point...in this country more than EVER IN OUR HISTORY, we interact with people from all over the world, with different views on religion, sexual orientation, etc. I know this isn't a general tolerance thread and is focusing on racism, but there are so many more people comfortable with coming out as gay or transgender - that has to mean this is a more accepting climate for that than we've seen previously. 

 

Now here's my overall opinion - If somehow there was an easy way to measure this year by year...my best guess is that there are far fewer racist people today than in the past. I do think the ones that remain are bolder due to the president. I also believe the events that happen are reported on more often than they were several years ago. 

 

 

<<<I just saw this post i had typed out ...a week ago?  more?? less???   just sitting in a tab on my desktop      >>>

 

 

I agree with the broader and specific points, but have problems with the conclusions... what you are arguing here is as if racism (or any thing else, for that matter) was a binary choice.   If racist tendencies or inclinations still persist, then things haven;t changed at all.     

 

that is not the way things work, and CAN'T be the way progress works.   

 

Picture an 80 year old man who watched his family participate in cross burnings and lynchings as a kid, and went to segregated schools, and just plain lived his whole life with around a bunch of people with the shared understanding that blacks were unworthy and inferior (that didn't even need to be articulated, because it was so deep in the neighborhood's self conscious).  Now imagine him in a nursing home, with a black Nurse that cares for him well.   and imagine a great-grandchild (who was raised in very different circumstances) visiting, and him blurting out... "you know...Sheryl is great....  maybe darkies aren't so bad..."   

 

Is that a god thing?  or a bad thing?  

 

 

 

 

it is a crystal clear statement of the overt racism that exists in the world.   It is a harsh slap-in-the-face..... . and a little glimmer of progress.    Both.    

 

 

 

but mostly it is progress.   and progress is progress, and that is the way things ACTUALLY change for the better in the real world.   There are no, and never will be, shocking-abrupt-total about-face changes in societies' perceptions/prejudices/practices  ... there is just gradual shift.     (although.. sometimes things can get drastically worse... quickly ).    if over time, things get better... we are all winning.   Some people may resort to ever more subversive strategies to allow them to continue to practice their retained underlying prejudices.... but even THAT is a clear surrender to the the increasingly clear fact that some form of  racism is less acceptable today than whatever they used to consider the norm in the past...  AND  (possibly most importantly) each generation grows up in a world where some of the worst practices of even just their parent's time just aren't acceptable any more.    

 

When that happens over and over... things get better.   

 

 

 

 

but... i am not seeing any progress RIGHT NOW.    and that is what is worrying.   and i also worry whether the ugly outbursts of the last 2 years --- where some people are suddenly feeling empowered to be MORE overt in their prejudices--- i worry about how much of the incremental progress that we have fought for as a society is being given away in a chunk?  (and will have to be slowly clawed back in the future, as a whole new generation views overt racism that clearly was NOT acceptable recently, is suddenly "back on the table")

 

 

I worry about giving back progress.   but i think it is absurd to assert that there has been no (or little) progress over the last half century,  because there is backsliding now, or because some people suddenly feel empowered to no longer hide their biases.    There WAS progress.. we just have to keep going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

@mcsluggo that was a very good post. maybe you should go back and hunt around for other things you've forgotten to share!

[Elessar78]

Racism related... As most of y’all are keenly aware my racism radar is always turned way up... this Serena cartoon out of Australia-I’m not getting what’s so racist about it. Please explain.

[Dr. Do Itch Big]

Pic

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

Racism related... As most of y’all are keenly aware my racism radar is always turned way up... this Serena cartoon out of Australia-I’m not getting what’s so racist about it. Please explain.

 

I can reach if I want to, but I don't feel like getting upset about this.  Huge lips? Check.  For whatever reason looks fat, probably throw the fact she bigger then most of her opponents, but African women used to be on display in some Zoos because their body type was so unique to some Europeans..  Also the person she's playing against in that cartoon is a blonde, she threw that tantrum in a match against someone who is half Haitian, she don't look half Haitian.

 

I'm not jumping on this bandwagon of Sexist Racist BS.  She didn't like the calls, they might of been bad, but she lost to someone who is Half-Black and a Women.  Enough of the Faux Rage.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Renegade7

[abdcskins]

I don't know about racism, but I feel like the sexism angle that Serena mentioned in that match was overblown. The chair umpire penalized her for three violations, all of which were technically in accordance with the rules. Perhaps he was being harsh, particularly the third one. Was it because she was a woman? I really don't think so. Who could ever know anyway? 

[Mr. Sinister]

43 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

Racism related... As most of y’all are keenly aware my racism radar is always turned way up...

 

Turn it up a bit higher

[Elessar78]

7 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Turn it up a bit higher

Meh. See, that’s unhelpful.

 

[Elessar78]

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I can reach if I want to, but I don't feel like getting upset about this.  Huge lips? Check.  For whatever reason looks fat, probably throw the fact she bigger then most of her opponents, but African women used to be on display in some Zoos because their body type was so unique to some Europeans..  Also the person she's playing against in that cartoon is a blonde, she threw that tantrum in a match against someone who is half Haitian, she don't look half Haitian.

 

I'm not jumping on this bandwagon of Sexist Racist BS.  She didn't like the calls, they might of been bad, but she lost to someone who is Half-Black and a Women.  Enough of the Faux Rage.

The most racist part, to me, is a conscious choice to portray Osaka as a blonde woman. The timing of the tantrum cartoon speaks to a specific incident, so white washing Osaka is pretty bad. 

 

Yeah, the thick lips and the body type. But I just looked back through his other work and he's portrayed caucasian people with similarly pronounced lips. Could he render a slimmer Serena? Sure, but she is curvaceous and many in the RTT have actually praised her for that very thing. Is she not supposed to be portrayed with curly black hair? 

 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

9 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I'm not jumping on this bandwagon of Sexist Racist BS.  She didn't like the calls, they might of been bad, but she lost to someone who is Half-Black and a Women.  Enough of the Faux Rage.

did you make up this faux rage?

 

After that match, there wasn't much calling the umpire racist. It was probably sexist though.

 

And that cartoon is racist as hell. He made Serena look like the stereotypical angry black woman along with making a Haitian-Japanese woman look like a blonde white woman.

[Renegade7]

53 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

The most racist part, to me, is a conscious choice to portray Osaka as a blonde woman. The timing of the tantrum cartoon speaks to a specific incident, so white washing Osaka is pretty bad. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

did you make up this faux rage?

 

After that match, there wasn't much calling the umpire racist. It was probably sexist though.

 

And that cartoon is racist as hell. He made Serena look like the stereotypical angry black woman along with making a Haitian-Japanese woman look like a blonde white woman.

 

I still follow my facebook so the sexist racist convo is indeed real.  My biggest thing with that picture is the opponent being blonde, but that's not first time Serena has had a tantrum, that's just her worst. 

 

My gut tells me this was to depict this last match, hate that they made her blonde, it opens door to this convo.  If the artist typically gives characters big lips, i want to see that.  I'd lean towards wrong type of artistic liberty here, racism by definition is just as much about superiority as it is stereotypes.  Serena is typically bigger and superior athlete to her oopenents, many ways to depict that, i would not of made her fat, that was dumb and disrespectful. 

 

Is the cartoon racist? I'm trying to be more careful how i throw the word around, but see why people would feel that way.

 

[Elessar78]

34 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

And that cartoon is racist as hell. He made Serena look like the stereotypical angry black woman along with making a Haitian-Japanese woman look like a blonde white woman.

I won't say it's NOT racist, I don't really know.

 

Serena, in THIS case, was pretty angry and the satire is that she was throwing a tantrum. She did break a racket. The PACIFIER is strewn on the ground. Is satire supposed to stay away from topical, accurate (content-wise) of the incident?

[justice98]

In this scenario, I dont think there's any cartoon depiction of Serena being angry that would not seem racist.  There would just be no way to make light of the situation without the angry black woman trope being attached to it. 

 

But they're Australian, so what do they care if Americans dont like it.

[Elessar78]

2 minutes ago, justice98 said:

In this scenario, I dont think there's any cartoon depiction of Serena being angry that would not seem racist.  There would just be no way to make light of the situation without the angry black woman trope being attached to it. 

 

But they're Australian, so what do they care if Americans dont like it.

So black women can never be portrayed as angry?

[skinsmarydu]

Imho, the cartoonist got stuff wrong...artistic liberty, I guess. 

The overall message was wrong. Serena's had losses before, plenty of em. Being a crybaby (as depicted by the pacifier) is not her style. 

She was more than correct in the "sexist" argument. 

Nick Kyrgios was given a "pep talk" by an umpire in this very same tournament, who came down from the chair AND PUT AN ARM AROUND HIM...and he's the biggest crybaby on the tour...this is well-known by every fan or follower. 

 

Edit to add: Kyrgios is Australian, btw.

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by skinsmarydu

[justice98]

1 minute ago, Elessar78 said:

So black women can never be portrayed as angry?

 

Well, I said in this scenario, I didnt say never.  However, it's a fine line to walk.  Mainly because the racist, negative stereotype has been established.  If black women werent saddled with the angry black woman stereotype, it wouldnt be a sensitive issue. 

 

That's what happens with racism.  There's a lot of things you cant do because racist folks made it a thing and used it against people to marginalize and insult them for so long.