• 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

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Definitely. The net effect of improper methodology is often counter-productive. When people use "offense tactics" they can often end up pushing the moderate, malleable people into the extreme opposition position simply by virtue of coming across like assholes to the moderate, malleable group because they were also offended.

That's being said, sometimes a little offensiveness can be effective. That's why I am a fan of how comedians like Louis CK and Chris Rock have addressed the issue of white privilege with their "Being white is great" and "Colin Powell speaks so well" bits.

Hell, when I heard Chris Rock do that Colin Powell bit I was like "Holy ****! I've actually said that nonsense before! I'm a ****ing douche." :lol: Granted, ever since I saw that bit I've said stuff like that to my black friends just to **** with them, but I'm a dick like that.
 
Tucker Case said:
Definitely. The net effect of improper methodology is often counter-productive. When people use "offense tactics" they can often end up pushing the moderate, malleable people into the extreme opposition position simply by virtue of coming across like assholes to the moderate, malleable group because they were also offended.

That's being said, sometimes a little offensiveness can be effective. That's why I am a fan of how comedians like Louis CK and Chris Rock have addressed the issue of white privilege with their "Being white is great" and "Colin Powell speaks so well" bits.

Hell, when I heard Chris Rock do that Colin Powell bit I was like "Holy ****! I've actually said that nonsense before! I'm a ****ing douche." :lol: Granted, ever since I saw that bit I've said stuff like that to my black friends just to **** with them, but I'm a dick like that.
Click to expand...

Just so you guys know what he's talking about

 
teamosil said:
What about it do you consider "racist"? It seems obviously and overtly anti-racist to me, no?
Click to expand...

It is racist because it suggests that all white people are somehow privileged simply because they are white. This is a bald-faced lie, and a racist one at that. How can you not see that?

Do you really believe that an unemployed white person living on food stamps is somehow more "privileged" than an upper class black person, simply because he is white? How screwed up in the head do you have to be to think this way?
 
Sig said:
It is racist because it suggests that all white people are somehow privileged simply because they are white. This is a bald-faced lie, and a racist one at that. How can you not see that?

Do you really believe that an unemployed white person living on food stamps is somehow more "privileged" than an upper class black person, simply because he is white? How screwed up in the head do you have to be to think this way?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. Privilege doesn't equate to success directly. It is more like opportunity. And whites, like myself, definitely have an advantage because of the color of their skin where blacks have a disadvantage. They have done an experiment where they send in white and black job applicants with the same resume to apply for the same job and the white applicant gets 2.4 times more interviews. They've done that exact experiment twice in different cities, run by different people, and they got almost exactly the same results. The applicants are meticulously selected to ensure that they have roughly the same IQ, the same accent, they dress the same, they have the same real life income, etc. All that differs is the color of their skin and it makes that enormous of a difference.

So, by all means, there are many other factors that can advantage or disadvantage a person. A black person who is smart and born to rich, educated, parents, overall is going to have a lot more advantages than a white person who is less bright, born into poverty and with parents who are uneducated. But nonetheless, the colors of their skin makes a difference. It is one factor amongst many, but we should not pretend it doesn't exist just because it is kind of uncomfortable to talk about.
 
teamosil said:
Yes I do. Privilege doesn't equate to success directly. It is more like opportunity. And whites, like myself, definitely have an advantage because of the color of their skin where blacks have a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

WRONG, DAMN WRONG!!!...

Don't tell me that welfare class whites have any advantage over anyone, not even welfare class blacks. Not only are welfare class whites economically disadvantaged but they have no Affirmative Action status to provide them a leg up.

They have done an experiment where they send in white and black job applicants with the same resume to apply for the same job and the white applicant gets 2.4 times more interviews. They've done that exact experiment twice in different cities, run by different people, and they got almost exactly the same results. The applicants are meticulously selected to ensure that they have roughly the same IQ, the same accent, they dress the same, they have the same real life income, etc. All that differs is the color of their skin and it makes that enormous of a difference.
Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder how Asians and Hispanics compared to Blacks in this experiment? Tell me, was this even tested?

So, by all means, there are many other factors that can advantage or disadvantage a person. A black person who is smart and born to rich, educated, parents, overall is going to have a lot more advantages than a white person who is less bright, born into poverty and with parents who are uneducated.
Click to expand...

In other words, it is beyond cruel and abominably racist to suggest that a poor and not-so-bright white person has more advantages than a wealthy and intelligent black person, especially since the wealthy and intelligent black person is even more advantaged due to his Affirmative Action status. Isn't that right?

But nonetheless, the colors of their skin makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, it most certainly does.

It is one factor amongst many, but we should not pretend it doesn't exist just because it is kind of uncomfortable to talk about.
Click to expand...

It is remarkable how you can be so right and yet so wrong, at the same time. Dude, whether you realize it or not, you are a profound racist. If you truly are white, you are exhibiting a definite reaction formation. I dare say that there is a klansman lingering somewhere inside you.
 
Last edited:
Sig said:
Gee, I wonder how Asians and Hispanics compared to Blacks in this experiment? Tell me, was this even tested?
Click to expand...

One of the two times they did it they did compare Hispanics. Hispanics got slightly more interviews than blacks, but not much more. Interestingly, white applicants whose resumes reported that they had just been released from serving an 18 month sentence for drug trafficking fared slightly better than blacks or hispanics with no criminal record.

Sig said:
In other words, it is beyond cruel and abominably racist to suggest that a poor and not-so-bright white person has more advantages than a wealthy and intelligent black person, especially since the wealthy and intelligent black person is even more advantaged due to his Affirmative Action status. Isn't that right?
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem like you're following. Being wealthy is an advantage. Having educated parents is an advantage. Being smart is an advantage. There are many advantages. One of those is being white. That gives you a boost. That doesn't mean that it automatically outweighs all the other factors.
 
teamosil said:
One of the two times they did it they did compare Hispanics. Hispanics got slightly more interviews than blacks, but not much more. Interestingly, white applicants whose resumes reported that they had just been released from serving an 18 month sentence for drug trafficking fared slightly better than blacks or hispanics with no criminal record.
Click to expand...

And what else was on those resumes? A white person with a felony drug conviction and an MBA from Harvard might be expected to fare better at a job interview than a black or hispanic with no criminal record and no high school diploma.

I do not doubt that being white has its advantages in certain contexts. However, it also has its disadvantages in certain contexts. I wonder how a white person may fare at job interview where the employer is specifically looking to hire a minority in order to comply EEO regulations?

It doesn't seem like you're following. Being wealthy is an advantage. Having educated parents is an advantage. Being smart is an advantage. There are many advantages. One of those is being white. That gives you a boost. That doesn't mean that it automatically outweighs all the other factors.
Click to expand...

Actually, it seems as though it is you who are not following. Being white can give you a boost in certain contexts. It can pull the plug on you in other contexts. Yes, this is reality.

...and to suggest that being white is always an advantage is just plain wrong and racist, as you are in this context.
 
Sig said:
And what else was on those resumes?
Click to expand...

They are otherwise identical.

Sig said:
I do not doubt that being white has its advantages in certain contexts. However, it also has its disadvantages in certain contexts. I wonder how a white person may fare at job interview where the employer is specifically looking to hire a minority in order to comply EEO regulations?
Click to expand...

That's true, but on balance, overall, even with all that in place, being white gives somebody a 2.4 to 1 advantage over being black.
 
teamosil said:
They are otherwise identical.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, but let's assume that they are for all intents and purposes. What does that really mean in regards to the ad campaign? After all, the numbers for black crime are outrageous in every category. But would that warrant an ad campaign wherein a series of African Americans with white graffiti scribbled on their faces come on and make sweeping, broad-stroked indictments about the proclivity of antisocial behavior of African Americans? Would you not immediately condemn such an ad for its reckless, virulently racist, and socially irresponsible message? How do you think an upstanding African American citizen would feel about such an advertisement? My guess is that he would feel very similar to how the disadvantaged white person feels when he sees this idiotic "white privilege" ad.


That's true, but on balance, overall, even with all that in place, being white gives somebody a 2.4 to 1 advantage over being black.
Click to expand...

Do have any understanding of what racism and prejudice really are? It is remarkable to me that these can be your pet topics of discussion, for years, and yet you have cultivated so little insight into the matter.

What in the world are you talking about?

"A 2.4 to 1 advantage over being black?" What sort of reckless, irresponsible, racist horsesh*t is this? Think about the stats which you have embraced as so meaningful (even if they are somehow true by one measure) and then ask yourself "What is it that I have in common with the job interviewers in the very study I have put forward as the basis of my argument in this thread?"
 
Continually dividing the people along racial or religious lines ... the last gasp of our fascist govmnt to hold its grip on the public, and the fascist corp. media are their megaphone.
 
Kane said:
Continually dividing the people along racial or religious lines ... the last gasp of our fascist govmnt to hold its grip on the public, and the fascist corp. media are their megaphone.
Click to expand...

You forgot a BIG one, division based on wealth/income that is also a recurring theme of the Obama campaign.
 
Kane said:
Continually dividing the people along racial or religious lines ... the last gasp of our fascist govmnt to hold its grip on the public, and the fascist corp. media are their megaphone.
Click to expand...

Sad but likely true, except for the part about it being "the last gasp of our fascist government." Our government is not fascist yet, but it is getting there. Indeed, it is getting increasingly more difficult to tell the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I fear that, in the fullness of time, we might not be able to tell the difference between the USA and the PRC.
 
Last edited:
Sig said:
I doubt it, but let's assume that they are for all intents and purposes.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand. It's an experiment. It was done first by Northwestern, then by Princeton, Brown and the National Academy of Sciences. They made up the resumes for the experiment. They were the same.

Sig said:
What does that really mean in regards to the ad campaign? After all, the numbers for black crime are outrageous in every category. But would that warrant an ad campaign wherein a series of African Americans with white graffiti scribbled on their faces come on and make sweeping, broad-stroked indictments about the proclivity of antisocial behavior of African Americans? Would you not immediately condemn such an ad for its reckless, virulently racist, and socially irresponsible message? How do you think an upstanding African American citizen would feel about such an advertisement? My guess is that he would feel very similar to how the disadvantaged white person feels when he sees this idiotic "white privilege" ad.
Click to expand...

The ads don't say anything remotely negative about white people at all, so I'm not sure where you're coming from on that.

Sig said:
"A 2.4 to 1 advantage over being black?" What sort of reckless, irresponsible, racist horsesh*t is this? Think about the stats which you have embraced as so meaningful (even if they are somehow true by one measure) and then ask yourself "What is it that I have in common with the job interviewers in the very study I have put forward as the basis of my argument in this thread?"
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. Those are the actual numbers. In factual reality, if a black person and a white person, who are in all other ways as identical as possible, apply for the same job, the white person gets 2.4 times more interviews. Whatever you or I think of that, whatever we wish were the case, that is the factual, measureable, reality. That's where things stand, in fact, today.
 
teamosil said:
No, you don't understand. It's an experiment. It was done first by Northwestern, then by Princeton, Brown and the National Academy of Sciences. They made up the resumes for the experiment. They were the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well I allowed for that assumption. Apparently, you missed my entire point by a mile and a half.


The ads don't say anything remotely negative about white people at all, so I'm not sure where you're coming from on that.
Click to expand...

Unless you are in a coma or otherwise blinded by your precepts, the ads certainly suggest something very negative about white people, namely, that they ALL enjoy some unfair advantage over everyone else.


Not sure what you mean. Those are the actual numbers. In factual reality, if a black person and a white person, who are in all other ways as identical as possible, apply for the same job, the white person gets 2.4 times more interviews. Whatever you or I think of that, whatever we wish were the case, that is the factual, measureable, reality. That's where things stand, in fact, today.
Click to expand...

Measurable by what, a social studies experiment undoubtedly designed to arrive at a desired conclusion? What are you, kidding me? Do you have any idea how irresponsible, reckless, and racist it is to throw that sort of "data" around as if it were actually pure science?

Regardless, even if your 2.4 were a product of pure science (which it is not), it would still be ABOMINABLY RACIST to suggest that such data applies to all white people in all circumstances, just as it would be abominably racist to suggest that the crime statistics regarding blacks apply to all blacks in all circumstances. How is it that you can miss this most glaring aspect of the topic at hand?
 
GPS_Flex said:
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.
Click to expand...


Why is it racist to say white people enjoy privileges that black people don't?


You through out the 'race card' attack, like it means something. I see no race card.


Shinning a light on inequality is not 'the race card', and calling it that is stupidity. And possibly racists defending their true desires.
 
Hatuey said:
I got a chuckle. Honestly. I did. Whenever people talk to me about the plight of "white men" - I can't help but think about the fact that all 3 branches of government are composed primarily of white men, most fortune 500 companies are run by white men, most of the US media is owned by white men and out of the top 10 richest people in the world 9 are white (with the notable exception of Carlos Slim Helu, a Mexican of Lebanese ancestry - also the richest man in the world). I honestly do feel bad for the white man though. Not being able to say nigger is terrible.
Click to expand...

I get it. So if congress is run by mostly white men, and other white people are rich then clearly my struggles or anything pertaining to me or any other white people are moot because some white people are rich. Yea that makes sense.

According to forbes, 5 of the top 10 are white. FYI. Only 2 branches of the government are primarily white. FYI. But you saying it must make it true huh?
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain to me what part of this campaign is "racist"? I don't see anything that denigrates or insults white people
 
muciti said:
I get it. So if congress is run by mostly white men, and other white people are rich then clearly my struggles or anything pertaining to me or any other white people are moot because some white people are rich. Yea that makes sense.

According to forbes, 5 of the top 10 are white. FYI. Only 2 branches of the government are primarily white. FYI. But you saying it must make it true huh?
Click to expand...

All three branches of the fed govt are primarily white. Which country are you talking about?
 
muciti said:
The executive branch of the United States of America. Wow. I thought that was pretty clear.
Click to expand...

The executive branch of the USA is primarily white.

This may surprise you, but the executive branch is composed of thousands and thousands of people, most of whom are white
 
sangha said:
The executive branch of the USA is primarily white.

This may surprise you, but the executive branch is composed of thousands and thousands of people, most of whom are white
Click to expand...

The executive branch is controlled by 1 person who just so happens to not be white. Furthermore those who are under him in the executive branch are more diverse than our population.
 
muciti said:
The executive branch is controlled by 1 person who just so happens to not be white. Furthermore those who are under him in the executive branch are more diverse than our population.
Click to expand...

No, the executive branch is LED by one person, but is CONTROLLED by laws and a constitution written primarily by white men.

And those under Obama in the executive branch are primarily white.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom