• 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!

Is it OK for Whites to Bash Blacks for Comedy Purposes?

Is it OK for Whites to Bash Blacks for Comedy Purposes?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 84.6%

  • No

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
VanceMack said:
I think the biggest difference is in the derogatory nature of the use of words. I also believe that there are reasons why whites get offended...one being that there ARE a lot of white folks that dont fit the stereotypical silver spoon white person...that has led a ****ed up life by anyones standards, and resents being placed in the same category as other whites. Its easy to tell that person "yeah...but you still have it better than most black folks"...but thats not going to be all that well recieved.
Click to expand...

You could try knocking that chip off your shoulder, you know? No matter how much it sucks to grow up poor, at least you aren't black. You could be poor and black, which would suck a whole lot more, no matter how many types of wiggly jiggly denial y'all try to get up into.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You could try knocking that chip off your shoulder, you know? No matter how much it sucks to grow up poor, at least you aren't black. You could be poor and black, which would suck a whole lot more, no matter how many types of wiggly jiggly denial y'all try to get up into.
Click to expand...

Why does being poor and black suck more than being poor and white?
 
mac said:
Whos racism.....and being a minority hasn't impacted me in the least...at least not negatively.
Click to expand...

racism directed at minorities is more influential than racism directed the majority, that's why i included minority. who's racism? the racism of people who are racist.
 
theplaydrive said:
racism directed at minorities is more influential than racism directed the majority, that's why i included minority. who's racism? the racism of people who are racist.
Click to expand...

I would think that is directed at anyone...hell, it's even directed at ones own race. Middle class white people use the term Trailer park trash far more often than any black person I know.
 
mac said:
I would think that is directed at anyone...hell, it's even directed at ones own race. Middle class white people use the term Trailer park trash far more often than any black person I know.
Click to expand...

Right. But let's say your poor and want a job. Better to be black or white? White.

Their objective was to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. They assigned either an African American sounding name or a white sounding name to each resume in order to manipulate perception of race. The results of the experiment showed that white names received 50 percent more callbacks for interviews, an indication of significant racial discrimination in the labor market. The results of the experiment also showed that a higher quality resume for whites gets 30 percent more callbacks while on the contrary a higher quality resume for African Americans gets far fewer callbacks. Their results showed that racial discrimination was uniform and prominent across occupations and industries in the labor market.
Click to expand...

Black names and racism in the hiring process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I am a little disturbed that these polls suggest that people are more accepting of white comedians bashing black people, but not black comedians bashing whites.

FTR... I voted the same way in both polls. It's ok. It's comedy.

Some white people aren't comfortable with hearing racial jokes.... You guys suck and need to get over it. If you're cool with white comedians bashing black people, then you should be fine with black comedians cracking a joke about your race.
 
SheWolf said:
I am a little disturbed that these polls suggest that people are more accepting of white comedians bashing black people, but not black comedians bashing whites.

FTR... I voted the same way in both polls. It's ok. It's comedy.

Some white people aren't comfortable with hearing racial jokes.... You guys suck and need to get over it. If you're cool with white comedians bashing black people, then you should be fine with black comedians cracking a joke about your race.
Click to expand...

Private poll results - It's more likely that different people voted in different polls.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Private poll results - It's more likely that different people voted in different polls.
Click to expand...

I know... It's a valid point, but the results still look really skewed because in this poll about 95% say it's ok to bash black people for comedy purposes, and in the other poll 70% said it was ok to bash whites... I just think it's interesting. It would have more validity if the polls were not private. I agree.
 
SheWolf said:
My friend tells me all the time that because her name is white, she always getting calls for a job... but because she doesn't "talk white" they hardly ever call her back.
Click to expand...

She may have a point. Institutional racism is a bitch.
 
SheWolf said:
My friend tells me all the time that because her name is white, she always getting calls for a job... but because she doesn't "talk white" they hardly ever call her back.
Click to expand...

She's just assuming they call her more than they call others - she has no basis for it.
She is also assuming that 'how' she talked (as in: an accent) is the reason why they don't call her back - perhaps it's *what* she says that drives them away.

It's the same as women *assuming* that they were denied a job or a promotion because of their height, gender or motherhood when often, upon investigation, it's found to be things like *lack* of experience, an *inability* to get along with others and a *bad* work ethic. . . and so on. . . nothing related to gender.

And if someone doesn't hire you because of race or gender then it wouldn't have ben a good idea to be hired there anyway. Maybe she should reconsider where she applies and the words she uses over the phone.

I didn't hire people who mumbled or spoke lazily over the phone or who could not follow instructions when filling out the application very well - and wouldn't you know, women were the worst at these things. Women in general - not even remotely race related - tend to drone on and on when asked questions and laugh sporatically when a laugh is not appropriate.

I hardly ever hired women - they just aren't work-compatible . .. especially southern women. It's a job interview, not the love connection. but there was the occasional "the the point" woman and they were often ideal workers for the job - no fluffy junk.

I also had a lot of problems with 'girly girls' (who tend to do the extra laughing) not taking their jobs seriously, not getting work done on time, and complaining about the nature of the work (like cleaning the bathrooms adn so on) - I began to associate a talky, laughing demeanor with a soon-to-be-refusal to do the job they applied for. I'm sure some good employees were grouped with the bad ones - but I had to deal with too many bad ones to want to take chances.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
She's just assuming they call her more than they call others - she has no basis for it.
She is also assuming that 'how' she talked (as in: an accent) is the reason why they don't call her back - perhaps it's *what* she says that drives them away.

It's the same as women *assuming* that they were denied a job or a promotion because of their height, gender or motherhood when often, upon investigation, it's found to be things like *lack* of experience, an *inability* to get along with others and a bad work ethic. . . and so on.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree with AS here. Although she may be entirely correct, she doesn't know the real reason why it happens. Just like some white folks complain that a less-qualified black man got a job over them because of affirmative action. Nine times out of ten, they don't know the real process the decision-makers went through.
 
Yea, there is a certain "professionalism" that a lot of hirers are looking for, and i think a lot of people just don't get that.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
She's just assuming they call her more than they call others - she has no basis for it.
She is also assuming that 'how' she talked (as in: an accent) is the reason why they don't call her back - perhaps it's *what* she says that drives them away.

It's the same as women *assuming* that they were denied a job or a promotion because of their height, gender or motherhood when often, upon investigation, it's found to be things like *lack* of experience, an *inability* to get along with others and a *bad* work ethic. . . and so on. . . nothing related to gender.

And if someone doesn't hire you because of race or gender then it wouldn't have ben a good idea to be hired there anyway. Maybe she should reconsider where she applies and the words she uses over the phone.

I didn't hire people who mumbled or spoke lazily over the phone or who could not follow instructions when filling out the application very well - and wouldn't you know, women were the worst at these things. Women in general - not even remotely race related - tend to drone on and on when asked questions and laugh sporatically when a laugh is not appropriate.

I hardly ever hired women - they just aren't work-compatible . .. especially southern women. It's a job interview, not the love connection. but there was the occasional "the the point" woman and they were often ideal workers for the job - no fluffy junk.

I also had a lot of problems with 'girly girls' (who tend to do the extra laughing) not taking their jobs seriously, not getting work done on time, and complaining about the nature of the work (like cleaning the bathrooms adn so on) - I began to associate a talky, laughing demeanor with a soon-to-be-refusal to do the job they applied for. I'm sure some good employees were grouped with the bad ones - but I had to deal with too many bad ones to want to take chances.
Click to expand...

out of curiosity, what was your occupation and what were the jobs these women were applying for?
 
StillBallin75 said:
I gotta agree with AS here. Although she may be entirely correct, she doesn't know the real reason why it happens. Just like some white folks complain that a less-qualified black man got a job over them because of affirmative action. Nine times out of ten, they don't know the real process the decision-makers went through.
Click to expand...

Exactly - it goes both ways.

I've heard *so many times* that "he was only hired because of affirmative action" and stuff like that - I've heard that MORE than anything. Employees argued that WITH me in my office - GEESH! My line was always something like, "If you don't like my business decision that I have made for the better of our company then I can find you employment elsewhere."
 
StillBallin75 said:
out of curiosity, what was your occupation and what were the jobs these women were applying for?
Click to expand...

Cashiering positions in a few different stores (A hobby shop, a movie theater - etc)

I think it was more related to age: young teens were pippy, had energy, felt super awesome, lived at home, didn't have to take things too seriously because they didn't have kids - if they had a solid education they weren't likely to apply for base-wage positions, etc. They simply had less on the line.

Older women (and men) were more likely to have kids, be more serious, more decated at their work and more willing to do the dirty work when it needed to get done. . . etc. the issues I screened for went away with maturity.

The guys had their own set of issues - also related to age. Teen males seemed to *not hear* a lot of instruction and information on the job. They were more likely to forget to complete a task because "I didn't hear you, sorry" . . . So pre-screening for males the request to "repeat that, please" in an interview or over the phone more than once or without probable cause would be a sign that he didn't have his listening-ears on. . . and would likely be a continual problem.

So - I'd ask questions in interviews about future goals, money management, financial knowledge. I didn't expect anyone to have life squared away - but I wanted people who *needed* to work beyond 'because my Dad said I had to get a job or move out.' Overall - Every single employee I fired seemed less concerned about doing the necessary things to keep their job because they felt they could easily just get another one. . . so they were overall less dedicated.

Teens, however, who did live on their own were more responsible because life circumstances led them to that early on.

However - you can't come straight out and ask "do you have kids" and "do you live at home with your parents" - you have to try to devise that from different questions and answers.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm sure some good employees were grouped with the bad ones - but I had to deal with too many bad ones to want to take chances.
Click to expand...

And here we are, at the crux of the problem.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You could try knocking that chip off your shoulder, you know? No matter how much it sucks to grow up poor, at least you aren't black. You could be poor and black, which would suck a whole lot more, no matter how many types of wiggly jiggly denial y'all try to get up into.
Click to expand...

Ummm...I gotta say Catz...pretty much every time this subject comes up...the one whipping out the 'chip' is usually you. I wasnt whining...I was making an observation. Me? I got life by the balls. I dont mind saying it.
 
StillBallin75 said:
It really IS hard to blame the employer for discriminating against certain groups sometimes.
Click to expand...

No it's not. If you don't hire people because you ASSUME that will behave in a ways that other people of their gender, race, accent or culture have behaved before without them actually having exhibited the behavior, then you are to blame for discrimination based on nothing but your own prejudices and assumptions
 
theplaydrive said:
No it's not. If you don't hire people because you ASSUME that will behave in a ways that other people of their gender, race, accent or culture have behaved before without them actually having exhibited the behavior, then you are to blame for discrimination based on nothing but your own prejudices and assumptions
Click to expand...

I agree with this as an ideal, but I could also empathize with AS and imagine myself in her shoes.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I agree with this as an ideal, but I could also empathize with AS and imagine myself in her shoes.
Click to expand...

I guess we have to agree to disagree. When people talk about institutional racism/sexism/whatever, these are the actions that they're talking about - judging the individual against the people of arbitrary X based on the people of arbitrary X who they have encountered before them. I feel nothing for employers who reject someone because people before them of their race, sex, sexuality or culture, behaved a certain way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom