• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Theplaydrive

People just need to stop whining, acknowledge the negative aspects of their population or themselves and get on with it.

And... How does one go about "getting on with it". What is "it" they are supposed to get on with?


Tim-
 
Of course, one could easily flip this and point out that there are those who appear to see racism in a Hallmark card that uses the term "black holes"

I think that's stupid.

yet can't/won't see even the possibility that it exists an ad campaign that's effectively saying that you're wrong to be white.

That's not what it's saying.
 
Thank you for saying this, Mr. I. As I've noted before, for the most part, putting someone on the immediate defensive doesn't really open them up to hearing your position because they'll be too busy feeling the need to defend themselves.

I think that's true, but different people will respond in different ways. Do I think that overall this type of campaign is effective? Probably not. But it'll at least be successful at fostering some sort of discussion. And if people aren't reflexively on the defensive maybe they'll stop and think, "hmm maybe they have a point."
 
Last edited:
And if people aren't reflexively on the defensive maybe they'll stop and think, "hmm maybe they have a point."

There's some truth to the idea that instantly being on the defensive should be a cause to stop and think, but the problem with these ads is that they won't trigger such introspection because they put people on the defensive. These ads will only appeal to those who have already realized the truth of the statements they contain.

I thought they were actually kind of humorous because of how they would be taken. Ultimately, this is detrimental to the discussion, though.
 
There's some truth to the idea that instantly being on the defensive should be a cause to stop and think, but the problem with these ads is that they won't trigger such introspection because they put people on the defensive. These ads will only appeal to those who have already realized the truth of the statements they contain.

I thought they were actually kind of humorous because of how they would be taken. Ultimately, this is detrimental to the discussion, though.

I think that's a fair point Tucker. I just think the whole issue of contemporary racism - by which I mean post-Jim Crow, societal and institutional racism which in turn results in the implicit advantages of white privilege - is so loaded, that it's impossible to expose [what I believe to the be] the truth about contemporary racism in America without offending some people's sensibilities.

And for those who are STILL clamoring that the un-fair campaign is engaging in racism itself, I'd respond that it's no more racist towards whites than an ad campaign illustrating gender discrimination and male privilege is sexist towards men.
 
Last edited:
Well, since you're being frank, let me be the same. You're so busy clutching your pearls, that you're not grasping two main things:

1. When you're depicting a general/societal phenomenon (which white privilege is), there will be generalizations. It's the same when talking about black incarceration rates and education disparities. You can't talk about societal patterns without generalizations. So you either ignore it to avoid offending people or you address it and deal with the consequences. Although you said there are better ways to discuss this, you seem geared toward the former since you haven't accepted the fundamental reality that it's impossible to talk about white privilege without generalized language.

2. It's better to confront the negative aspects of yourself or of the population you belong to than to ignore them or have your hand held while talking them.
To explain, nobody likes to see themselves depicted negatively, as a group or as an individual. Regardless of wants, there are negative things about or around most individuals and groups. You can either confront them, whine when people point it out or request that people hold your hand in order to talk about it. Most people do the last two, unfortunately (which is what you're doing). For instance, there are black people who REFUSE to acknowledge problems within the black population that contribute to their socioeconomic place in society. There are white people who REFUSE to acknowledge problems within the white population that maintain inequality. And so on...

People just need to stop whining, acknowledge the negative aspects of their population or themselves and get on with it.

Certainly, much of this is true. But when arguments are made that certain characteristics of black culture embrace violence, or in regard to welfare reform- one is always met with accusations of racism before they've even been allowed to qualify their point.

The race card is generally used to deflect from REAL, ACTUAL, PROBLEMS that need to be solved.

I, for one, don't feel very priveledged. I suffer from PMS- Pale Male Syndrome.
 
Last edited:
People just need to stop whining, acknowledge the negative aspects of their population or themselves and get on with it.

I agree, but where we part is that I don't think this method of advertising is going to help drive people to do that but rather fuel the fire of that kind of reaction being the norm and thus helping to slow the process of people getting "on with it".

I'd feel the same way if it was billboards picturing a black man/woman/child's face stereotyping the issue of single parent black homes and families where a father is basically abscent.
 
I think that's a fair point Tucker. I just think the whole issue of contemporary racism - by which I mean post-Jim Crow, societal and institutional racism which in turn results in the implicit advantages of white privilege - is so loaded, that it's impossible to expose [what I believe to the be] the truth about contemporary racism in America without offending some people's sensibilities.

Oh, you'll certainly offend some people no matter what you do or say. But there are ways to minimize the offense.

Granted, with modern Conservativism being the last bastion of the true hyper-victim-mentality bull**** in this country, they are a very vocal group of offended folks. But people are starting to catch on to their victim-mentality nonsense and they are beginning to ignore them, so they can usually be dealt with these days by pointing out the absurdity of their views.
 
And for those who are STILL clamoring that the un-fair campaign is engaging in racism itself, I'd respond that it's no more racist towards whites than an ad campaign illustrating gender discrimination and male privilege is sexist towards men.

And you continue the strawman that the issue with it bieng racism is simply based off it talking about "white privledge" type of discrimination and not in terms of the method and statements surrounding its attempted presentation of said method.

In general an ad campaign illustrating gender discriminatio nand "male privlegde" is not inherently sexist. However if it had pictures of men's faces up there going "I am likely to rape you", "I see you nothing more than a pair of breasts", "I won't high you because you could get pregnant", and presenting an imagine that is nothing but a collection of broad stereotypes presented in a manner to imply that it is the standard mentality of all males towards the opposite sex then yeah, I'd say there's a hint of sexism in that notion as well.

However, you continually focus on your percieved issue that I supposedly have with "white privledge"...evident in your implicatoin that somehow the thought of it is what I find racist rather than what I've actually stated my issue is...however have repeatedly danced around and not touched the core of what my argument and issues with the ad is which is largely irrelevant to whether or not the ad is racist. That arugment being the net effect such a style of ad will have on the racial divide in this country. I said much the exact same thing, albiet wordier, that Tucker did that you thanked and commented your approval of yet you continue to trot out this notion and implicatoin that those who suggest its "engaging in racism" are doing so becuase it illustrates white privledge rather than actually note that the white privledge part is not the primary issue I hold with the ad.
 
Oh, you'll certainly offend some people no matter what you do or say. But there are ways to minimize the offense.

Granted, with modern Conservativism being the last bastion of the true hyper-victim-mentality bull**** in this country, they are a very vocal group of offended folks. But people are starting to catch on to their victim-mentality nonsense and they are beginning to ignore them, so they can usually be dealt with these days by pointing out the absurdity of their views.

To be frank I would put your religious right types right there next to your anti-religious individuals in terms of your "hyper-victim-mentality bull****" in this country type of people. The "OMG they're doing a war on christmas" complaints are obnoxious but about on par with the "OMG there's god on the dollar bill I'm so offended" crowd. I'd say there are still a fair bit of hyper-victim-mentality crowds out there...though I would agree that some of the louder ones recently have been certian segments of the right.

But again, this particular issue and being annoyed at it is not a "left/right" thing I believe. My wife's center, left leaning on social issues but leaning a bit more right on other issues since living with me. To be most accurate though she's mostly apolitical...she doesn't give much of a crap about politics. She found the ad idiotic and offensive...not in the "OMG I'm OFFENDED" sort of what but in more of the "My god it hurts that people are that ****ing dumb" sort of way. Even in terms of the racism divide she's differently on the neutral side of things as growing up through school the demographics were pretty much split even and has been interacting with other races significantly since a young age (she actually joking stated one downside of moving back to where I'm from is that there's "Nowhere near enough black people there"). Yet even someone on that end of the spectrum felt more insulted and annoyed at the stylization of the ad then somehow enlightened or inspired or altered in her way of thinking.

The generalized idea about what the message is concerning isn't the problem...it's the application and method of delivering that message that is problematic and I think does an overall disservice.
 
Last edited:
Theplaydrive

And... How does one go about "getting on with it". What is "it" they are supposed to get on with?

Tim-
Their lives and preferably, helping to fix whatever problems exist.
 
Of course, one could easily flip this and point out that there are those who appear to see racism in a Hallmark card that uses the term "black holes" yet can't/won't see even the possibility that it exists an ad campaign that's effectively saying that you're wrong to be white.
Somehow, I missed this last part of your post when I responded initially, as SB said, that's not what the ad campaign in saying, at all. That's just the "woe is me" interpretation of it kind of like when people point out low education rates in the black population and some black people argue that they are calling black people stupid.
 
And if people aren't reflexively on the defensive maybe they'll stop and think, "hmm maybe they have a point."
I think that this is one of the main problems with discussing race in this country. Almost everybody is on the defensive regardless of how arguments about race are presented.

Whether you present studies of white privilege or you develop a campaign like the one being discussed here, a lot white people are going to get defensive go on about "white guilt" or "you're being a racist hypocrite" without examining the veracity of the arguments being presented. Similarly, whether you present studies of black incarceration rates or address them in a more controversial way, a lot black people are going to get defensive and go on about "racism" or "you're just trying to bring us down."

Ultimately, white people don't want to be portrayed as evil racists. Blacks don't want to be portrayed as uneducated thugs. Hispanics don't want to be portrayed as overly dramatic unintelligible fools. Asians don't want to be portrayed as hostile xenophobes with comically stupid accents. And so on... In light of all this, people are so sensitive to these images of their population that they defend themselves against it even when they are not being invoked. It's understandable, but it needs to stop.

People don't want to be portrayed negatively, people don't want to confront the negative parts of their population/individuality and people don't want others to believe the stereotypes about them. This is something white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American and all other racial-ethnic groups and individuals have in common. The problem is that what unites them is what prevents them from hearing each other.
 
I agree, but where we part is that I don't think this method of advertising is going to help drive people to do that but rather fuel the fire of that kind of reaction being the norm and thus helping to slow the process of people getting "on with it".
Meh, I've already said several times that I don't think this particular campaign is going to be particularly effective and that's it's most likely just going to piss people off.

I'd feel the same way if it was billboards picturing a black man/woman/child's face stereotyping the issue of single parent black homes and families where a father is basically abscent.
I think that there have already been campaigns like that and they pissed some people off, didn't piss off others and sparked a lot of discussion. I think where we differ is that you think that pissing people off and offending people is a problem, period. I don't. Some of my greatest realizations came from someone offending me with the truth.
 
To be frank I would put your religious right types right there next to your anti-religious individuals in terms of your "hyper-victim-mentality bull****" in this country type of people. The "OMG they're doing a war on christmas" complaints are obnoxious but about on par with the "OMG there's god on the dollar bill I'm so offended" crowd. I'd say there are still a fair bit of hyper-victim-mentality crowds out there...though I would agree that some of the louder ones recently have been certian segments of the right.

The argument that there is no reason to have "God" on currency is not necessarily based on a victim-mentality, whereas the "war on Christmas" argument is entirely dependent on it. That's not to say that hyper anti-theists are not often guilty of employing a victim-mentality themselves, I'm just noting that there is a huge difference between the primary premises of those two arguments related to said victim mentality.

A better example would have been the anti-theists who cry about school valedictorians citing God in their speeches, or whine about Wal-mart having people say "Merry Christmas".

But again, this particular issue and being annoyed at it is not a "left/right" thing I believe.

This particular issue (these ads) no, that's not left/right at all. Had the ads delivered teh message more appropriately, however, the people who would be offended by the message would probably have a higher tendency towards being of the social conservative variety.

The generalized idea about what the message is concerning isn't the problem...it's the application and method of delivering that message that is problematic and I think does an overall disservice.

I agree 100%.
 
Certainly, much of this is true. But when arguments are made that certain characteristics of black culture embrace violence, or in regard to welfare reform- one is always met with accusations of racism before they've even been allowed to qualify their point.

The race card is generally used to deflect from REAL, ACTUAL, PROBLEMS that need to be solved.
.
Yes, black people can be defensive too.
 
Meh, I've already said several times that I don't think this particular campaign is going to be particularly effective and that's it's most likely just going to piss people off.

And on this part we'll agree even if we disagree on others

I think that there have already been campaigns like that and they pissed some people off, didn't piss off others and sparked a lot of discussion. I think where we differ is that you think that pissing people off and offending people is a problem, period. I don't. Some of my greatest realizations came from someone offending me with the truth.

One quibble. I don't think pissing people off is inherently problematic, period. I think that if the net result of you pissing people off is negative in terms of whatever the ends of your action is, then it's problematic. I also think that often it is a less efficient means of making a point get put across. Sometimes it definitely has a place...but it's not common and it's usually on a more narrow scope rather than broad.
 
The argument that there is no reason to have "God" on currency is not necessarily based on a victim-mentality, whereas the "war on Christmas" argument is entirely dependent on it. That's not to say that hyper anti-theists are not often guilty of employing a victim-mentality themselves, I'm just noting that there is a huge difference between the primary premises of those two arguments related to said victim mentality.

I was going to say there's premises on both sides that can go either way, but you said primary so I'll conceed that. Didn't spend a lot of time thinking on it as an offshoot post, but your "merry christmas" one hit the nail on the head well for what my general mindset was on it.

This particular issue (these ads) no, that's not left/right at all. Had the ads delivered teh message more appropriately, however, the people who would be offended by the message would probably have a higher tendency towards being of the social conservative variety.

I agree. Which does go back out to my point. There's a segment, which I think in part you highlight in your explanation here, that are likely not going to be affected in a way that takes them to the positive end of race relations regardless of what you do. It's that more malleable section that you want to reach and affect with teaching and advertising and as I've said...the methodology of this ad I think does more harm to the issue with that group then good.
 
Link: Fox News

Link: Un-Fair Campaign



I’m so sick of this kind of sanctimonious mental flatulence. Do they really think they are going to encourage solutions based dialogue by being racist toward people with white skin color? Are white people the only racist people?

I’m all for the elimination of racism but constantly playing the race card and being racist yourself won’t reduce racism.



Read the link and broadbrushing all whites as racist isn't the smartest way to go if you want to end racism, IMO.


I don't know about anyone else but I usually make a "judgement" call on people as get to know them.
 
And thus you demostrate another one of the problems when you imply that the statistics you mention here are only about racism or even mostly about racism.

Uh... How are racially motivated hate crimes not about racism? How is racial employment discrimination not about racism?
 
Do you realize you are exercising bigotry, using stereotypes and racially profiling me? You assume I am white without having ever met me, therefore you are a bigot.

Ummm... No... That does not make any sense I'm afraid...

You also speak to me as though you know I have never been discriminated against. Is this because you think I’m white and you don’t think white people are discriminated against?

Er what? Where did I say anything remotely like that? I feel like you meant to reply to another poster or something maybe?
 
Ummm... No... That does not make any sense I'm afraid...

You called me a white supremacist. Care to explain how I can be non-white and also be a white supremacist? You dug this hole; I’m just trying to throw you a rope.



Er what? Where did I say anything remotely like that? I feel like you meant to reply to another poster or something maybe?
Again, you called me a white supremacist.
 
Link: Fox News

Link: Un-Fair Campaign



I’m so sick of this kind of sanctimonious mental flatulence. Do they really think they are going to encourage solutions based dialogue by being racist toward people with white skin color? Are white people the only racist people?

I’m all for the elimination of racism but constantly playing the race card and being racist yourself won’t reduce racism.

White People Problems
 
You called me a white supremacist. Care to explain how I can be non-white and also be a white supremacist? You dug this hole; I’m just trying to throw you a rope.

Again, you called me a white supremacist.

No, not you specifically. It was generally about people who fight against efforts to attack racism. But, regardless, you just said in your last post that somehow that was bigotry and something about how I was denying that you had ever been the victim of discrimination... No idea where you're getting either of those things. Can you explain?
 
Back
Top Bottom