Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 236

Thread: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

  1. #81
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    I have exactly ZERO guilt for my success in life, whether white, black or yellow. Hard work is hard work, and lucky breaks happen for everyone, so these idiots can take their campaign and shove it!

    As Zyphlin states (In so many words), the advertising campaign was poorly conceived. Do they really think the rednecks (Sterotyping) will suddenly say OMG, what was I thinking? Do they really think hard working white people will suddenly say, OMG, yeah I had it so good being white, I mean, all those days eating ramen noodles, buming smokes, no car, no money while in college are suddenly going to feel guilty for where they are now?

    The problem with all these racist campaigns is that they fail because they assume most of us are racists, when in reality that may have been true one time in the past but today I don't think it's the case. I think most people judge people based off first impressions, not stereotypes, however, I do acknowledge that some of us cannot help but be cautious of stereotypical hoodlum looking people, and that also means white dudes with a bunch of tatoos goatee and wife beater shirts..

    I think racism will always exist to some degree as long as stereotyping exists.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  2. #82
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    The problem with the "silent (white and mostly male) majority" is that they don't really understand the level of racism being discussed. They always want to dumb it down to the most common denominator. That being how "racism" affects them in their personal lives as if it really made a difference in the societal scale of things. You ever notice that when you discuss racism on DP, you have about 10-15 people, most right wing or closeted right wingers crying about that one time they got passed over for some black guy at work? A story which can't be verified in any manner, shape or form is the information they want us to take into consideration when discussing racism. That's it. When you show them the mountains of independent sociological studies, government studies, demonstrating executive level discrimination against minorities, women, etc - they simply brush it off with a standard idiotic response of "slavery is over!", "Women get paid!" and "Obama got elected!" - then they parade their tokens - even the ones who pretend to be black on the internet - to show off how slavery is somehow a "societal problem" that affects us all equally. It really isn't. Not in the American context anyways.

    White Protestant males have simply had it better in US history. There is not a SINGLE person with any kind of historiographical studies under their belt who'd deny this on purpose. That's where "white privilege" comes from. It's not really speaking about "white women" privilege, though they have benefited from it. The label targets a pretty specific demographic who for one reason of another wants to deny it actually exists. For every rich African-American, Chinese American and Hispanic-American family there exist dozens of rich white protestant families many of whom wouldn't have reached their level if it weren't for the unique accident that they were born white in a country with 200+ years of social, governmental and cultural policies that benefited protestant whites. Sure, there exist some white groups within the US who have been discriminated against. However, they're few, far in between and noticeable exceptions to the general racism experienced by visible minorities in this country.

    The day the silent white mostly male majority recognizes this, we'll be able to discuss racism. Until then, we'll have to live with their personal unverifiable tales of racism and purposeful ignorance of the subject.
    Love it when people try to point out the exceptions to the rule to prove that somehow the rule doesn't still exist.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  3. #83
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    You've realized you have used the exact same argument to justify grossly stereotyping all whites and their experience as one where they are never "viewed as a color" or that they as a whole are always "privledged" in all situations regarding race that people use to justify saying that "blacks are more often criminals" as not being racist. That because statistics can be viewed in such a way that technically the answer is correct the gross over exaggeration or presentation or generalization across the board is reasonable and okay. Again, this is my issue with the ad. Not the notion that it's indicating white privledge, but the method in which it's trying to present its point and the bigoted stereotyping and prejudice hyperbole of generalizing the experience of individuals that are white across the board and across all times.

    I know the general locatoin you live in StillBallin. You tell me that a white guy in a Gogo bar/club is seen as raceless. Are you telling me some white boy going through South East heading to Barry Farms isn't possibly being thought of as "in the wrong neighborhood"? Am I saying that whites are viewed by their race anywhere near as much or with as severe of consequences as other minotiries? Not at all. But the kind of broad, across the board, stereotyping based singularly on race that this advertisement does is the type of thing that if done about any other race is called racism and yet here it's called acceptable and not racism. The reason? Apparently because racism when used against whites is okay because it "teaches them a lesson".

    Ignore the fact that apparently the lesson being taught to many is "racism is good if used against the right group" rather than "see how it feels to be treated racistly".

  4. #84
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    The problem with all these racist campaigns is that they fail because they assume most of us are racists, when in reality that may have been true one time in the past but today I don't think it's the case. I think most people judge people based off first impressions, not stereotypes, however, I do acknowledge that some of us cannot help but be cautious of stereotypical hoodlum looking people, and that also means white dudes with a bunch of tatoos goatee and wife beater shirts..
    There's definitely still racists out there, a good number too, but I agree with you that its declining. Where we part is I don't think it's going from Racist people to Non-racists. I think the shift is more towards an intermediate location where people are prejudiced but less likely to act consiously on those thoughts in a racist way. My issue with this advertising, in part, is that it is a symptom and example of that prejudiced thinking and the way it leads individuals to unconsiously do boarderline or flat out racist things due to their prejudiced thought.

    Racial stereotyping is prejudice, and to an extent that's never fully going to go away no more than the prejudice found in people towards every possible category of humanity can be made to go away. It can be lessoned, and it should be worked towards that, and it's intensity of severity can be tamped down, and we should work towards that as well...but we also have to realize that humanity is NEVER going to fully and completely stop looking at people, segmenting them off into groups, and making judgements based off that.

    Example...go ask someone their opinion on Geeks or have someone walk into an anime convention and give you an immediete judgement of the type of people there

  5. #85
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Good for it. You're playing non-sequiturs. I'm not really interested in the feel good stories you tell your kids.
    Well then close your eyes and don't read what I post. I understand, you're comfortable with the racism that comes from diversity training and don't want to let that go. Sad, but your choice.

  6. #86
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Beyond my more societial/political issue with the ad, I have a generalized marketing one that plays into it.

    I imagine you've got three general groups within each generation, with varying intensities in each group. 1) Your racists, 2) you're prejudiced, 3) and your neutrals. Your racists tend to act, your prejudiced tend to just think, your neutrals tend to do neither. Again, you then have variations within each regarding frequency, intensity, etc. But going mostly with those three.

    There seems to be three typical ways of "anti-racism" advertising. The "We are all the Same" method, the "Embrace Diversity" method, and the "Guilt/Shame" method.
    I don't think the campaign in about guilt or shame nor has anyone, that I've seen, advocated such a "method" in this thread. I think that when people point out white privilege and inequality a lot of people interpret that as an attempt to guilt or shame people when it's really just an attempt to acknowledge reality and some people feel guilty about it.

  7. #87
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And do you believe the type of people you describe are going to be more likely to circum from "shock value" than they are the other methods you've tried? Or is it more likely that those individuals are simply lost causes that no matter what you're simply not going to be able to convince save for if they have some kind of monumental individual epiphany?

    And...if it's the latter, then is that really the group you should be analyizing as to whether or not "shock value" is a worth while method?

    I guess our difference is that I don't think that group you describe is going to be affected any more by "shock value" versions of shame/guilt advertising then they are by any other method. So I go down to the next level of type of people and feel that this kind of advertising over other methods is less useful and more harmful thus providing a net negative.
    Some people are "lost causes" and others will respond to "shock value." I don't really think of the group as entirely monolithic when it comes to what will influence them. Shocking or angering images/words have a history of getting people to talk and think, particularly when they make people confront things that are normally easy to ignore or sweep under the rug.

    Polite conversations are great for people who are open to new information and changing their mind. However, when it comes to people who aren't so open, forcing them to confront the issue sometimes goes a longer way. That said, I don't think this particularly campaign is constructed in a way that's going to get those people beyond being angry.

    And as I said before, I don't think this campaign is shame/guilt based. I think that either you feel shame/guilt when you are confronted with the notion of white privilege and don't like it OR you assume that acknowledging white privilege and inequality is only done when people want to shame or guilt other people. I, personally, do not believe that white people should feel either emotion when confronted with white privilege and inequality because, for most of them, those realities are not due to anything that they, as individuals, have done.

  8. #88
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You've realized you have used the exact same argument to justify grossly stereotyping all whites and their experience as one where they are never "viewed as a color" or that they as a whole are always "privledged" in all situations regarding race that people use to justify saying that "blacks are more often criminals" as not being racist. That because statistics can be viewed in such a way that technically the answer is correct the gross over exaggeration or presentation or generalization across the board is reasonable and okay. Again, this is my issue with the ad. Not the notion that it's indicating white privledge, but the method in which it's trying to present its point and the bigoted stereotyping and prejudice hyperbole of generalizing the experience of individuals that are white across the board and across all times.

    I know the general locatoin you live in StillBallin. You tell me that a white guy in a Gogo bar/club is seen as raceless. Are you telling me some white boy going through South East heading to Barry Farms isn't possibly being thought of as "in the wrong neighborhood"? Am I saying that whites are viewed by their race anywhere near as much or with as severe of consequences as other minotiries? Not at all. But the kind of broad, across the board, stereotyping based singularly on race that this advertisement does is the type of thing that if done about any other race is called racism and yet here it's called acceptable and not racism. The reason? Apparently because racism when used against whites is okay because it "teaches them a lesson".

    Ignore the fact that apparently the lesson being taught to many is "racism is good if used against the right group" rather than "see how it feels to be treated racistly".
    Once again I'm not acknowledging that these ads are stereotyping or that they're racist. Aren't conservatives always going on about how racism has a clear definition and shouldn't be a term that's thrown around lightly?

    These ads aren't racist. They're pointing out how privilege works and challenging whites to think about how they benefit from said privilege, and once again like I said, privilege is a generalized (in other words, a "group") phenomenon.

    As for your Go-go bar/Barry Farms example, once again it's exception to the rule. It's like trying to show how good black people in America have it by pointing to the NBA, NFL, and hip-hop industry while ignoring society at large.

    Does black privilege exists in certain instances? Sure it does. You don't get as much credit or respect when you're a white rapper. If you're a white football player and you're a pro-bowl caliber player at a skill position, sure, people will think that you're some kind of weird anomaly like Jeremy Lin. If you're a white boy walking through the projects or a predominantly black working-class neighborhood, hell yeah it might be dangerous for you. I don't deny that that exists, nor do I deny that it's a problem.

    But when it comes to society as a whole, just how big a role does this "black privilege" play compared to white privilege when we live in a country where for the most part white people dominate in positions of power, own the vast majority of the resources, and write the rules? We're looking at the big picture here.

    As for your claim that statistics are misleading - yes, I agree. As sports fans we both know that raw statistics don't tell the whole story, and you have to be careful about what conclusions you draw from the numbers.

    I well aware that just because there are differences statistically between blacks and whites doesn't mean those differences are due to differences in race. However, there are mountains upon mountains of sociological studies that show that even when adjusting for socioeconomic status and education and other such factors, poor whites still enjoy advantages relative to poor blacks, and middle-class whites still enjoy advantages in society relative to middle-class blacks.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 06-25-12 at 01:18 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  9. #89
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I don't think the campaign in about guilt or shame nor has anyone, that I've seen, advocated such a "method" in this thread. I think that when people point out white privilege and inequality a lot of people interpret that as an attempt to guilt or shame people when it's really just an attempt to acknowledge reality and some people feel guilty about it.
    Advertisement/education of "white privledge" is not inherently in and of itself guilt/shame motivated. The method one advertises and utilizes white privledge is more to do with that. The fact this is "shock value" is more in line with the notion of it being a "guilt/shame" method of advertisement rather than it's use of White Privledge.

    The ability for it to "shock" and create a reaction in the direction the people who made it appear to want them to go comes from the notion that it causes someone to suddenly realize this exists and feel either guilty or shameful. You took that to mean immedietely guilty or shamed from an individual level. While that is one method, it is hardly the only way. It could be guilty in a societal or racial sense that "we let this happen". Could shame in a similar way...as in ashamed of society as a whole, or race as a whole, or even a generation as a whole. It could be simply the feeling that this is a "shameful" fact.

    Essentially, by stating the "guilt/shame" method, I'm suggesting the advertisings purpose is to instill a negative feeling or emotion towards the notion of race relations into a person in hopes of inspiring them to act. Personally, in almost all things, I'm a far larger supporter of positive re-enforcement in the majority of situations and especially in more broad reaching situations. The "guilt/shame" method to me is negative re-enforcement.

    As you said, this is an attempt by those individuals for people to acknowledge reality as they view it (to be frank, if their "reality" is what they depict on their website, their reality is screwed up similar to those who think racism is pretty much non-existant). However, my stance wasn't suggesting what their intend RESULT of their attempt was but rather the METHOD in which they seek to get people to reach that end. Essentially...what causes the person to "acknowledge reality"? Unless we're suggesting people are so blazingly stupid and unaware and yet so vapidly manipulated that they were entirely unaware that such a thing could possibly exist in any fashion prior to seeing these signs and then suddenly simply by seeing them and with no intermediary thought or feeling they become enlightened that it does exist, then we have to think there's a middle step there between Seeing the Ad and Acknowledging Reality that joins the two things.

  10. #90
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Once again I'm not acknowledging that these ads are stereotyping or that they're racist. Aren't conservatives always going on about how racism has a clear definition and shouldn't be a term that's thrown around lightly?
    I don't know, perhaps you should inquire with the conglomarate of "Conservatives". I could just as much say to you that "isn't it liberals who are always going on about how stereotyping a race is racism".

    Do I think the people who did these ad's are racist? Hard to say, I'd probably guess "no" but its almost pointless to even make a judgement of an entire persons being based on something like that. However...to me...these ad's are an example of taking ones prejudiced stereotypes about a race and putting those prejudiced thoughts into actual action in a physical, and in my opinion negative, manner. When prejudice goes from thought to action and especially negative action, to me that begins to edge into "racism" territory. To each their own on whether they agree with this being "prejduiced" or "stereotyping" and how they view racism.

    As for your Go-go bar/Barry Farms example, once again it's exception to the rule.
    An exception for one localized area of hundreds of thousands within the United States. These "exceptions" to the rule are not rare. Are they very common? No. But this isn't like a 1 in a 100 situation here. Which is why this idiotic stereotyping of white people as having never been viewed as their race, having never had people not treat them in certain positive ways because of their race, not to mention the ridiculousness of boiling these very interactions down simply to race is dumb and prejudiced. It's built off this assumption and notion and presentation that all white people are the same and experience the same and are treated the same based singularly off the color of their skin in all situations.

    It's like trying to show how good black people in America have it by pointing to the NBA, NFL, and hip-hop industry while ignoring society at large.
    Are you seriously suggesting the amount of minority heavy neighborhoods, establishments, businesses, and other locations across the country are as small in sampling as the amount of NBA/NFL/Hip Hop people are to the total black populatoin? Not to mention one need not simply go to a minority heavy location to experience it. Based on the idiocy of this campaign we're to imagine that every minority that a white person runs into views and treats them as if they're raceless at worst and positively because they're white at best.

    This is not suggesting that becuase a few outliers the rest doesn't exist. It's suggesting that because a minority of situations, but still a relevant amount, exist in a sort way that it's ridiculous to suggest that such minority simply doesn't exist because the majority happens more often.

    You approve of stereotyping and making broad sweeping suggestions of individuals based singularly on nothing but their race as a means of fighting racism because...hey, it's done to whites so that's okay. To me, you're supporting something that is actually damaging to the discussion of race in this country and contributing to the very mindset and notion that it supposedly wishes to fight.

Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •