AFL slams 'offensive' web page

[SaintsSeptember]

I once had opportunity to visit centrelink, and while I was there a woman came storming in. ( Obviously known to the staff ).
She was probably a Torres strait Islander or Fijian or something.
She had been to an interview and her compaint was that they had taken one look at her and it was all over. She was probably right.

She was really large, wearing leggings and a really bright yellow short skirt. It was circus come to town stuff.
Now the interviewers there may have been racist, but they might have also been put off by the really big loudly dressed woman with the overbearing personality.

Was she disadvantaged by her race, her culture, or was centerlink simply too stupid to advise here what to wear to a job interview.

 

[Caesar]

Still interested in those examples Caesar (and happy for you to spin this off into another thread if you like)

I'm not debating you on a false premise - being that if overt and explicit institutional discrimination doesn't exist, then there is no problem.

But to summarise just a few of the problems I have with the attitudes espoused by you and others in this thread:

a) 'institutionalised racism' includes more than the government legislation that explicitly favours one race over another that you cite (such as slavery or apartheid),
b) whether the racism that denies someone an opportunity is institutionalised or individual and based on widely-held attitudes of prejudice is irrelevant anyway since it makes no difference to the end result, and most importantly
c) the problem with racism is not necessarily related to the fact that someone has been singled out of a person for criticism according to a random attribute, but rather the damage that it does based on the historical and sociocultural context of that type of criticism and the power relationships at play. Therefore comparisons to redheads and the like are woefully ignorant and completely miss the point.

This thread basically confirms my long-held belief that the biggest problem with racism in Australia is sheer bloody ignorance, born out of the fact that so few people have any experience of the results of it. They don't actually understand the problem at all, and therefore are quite happy to pass off any objection to it as PC rubbish.

And that's really all I have to say, 'bout that.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Can everybody in this thread please look up the concept of equality of treatment v substantive equality before posting any more?

 

[MaddAdam]

Funny how jokes about ranga footballers like Cameron Ling are deemed acceptable but any jokes about black footballers and the overly PC AFL suddenly gets up in arms.

A ranga like Ling has no more choice in the colour of his hair than a black person like Majak Daw has in the colour of his skin yet for one group jokes are considered acceptable and for the other group they aren't. Some double standards once again.

Can you point me to any location now or period in history where red headed people have been institutionally discriminated against, held in slavery purely because of their hair colour, and so on?

Thanks.

 

[Necromancer Beth]

Can you point me to any location now or period in history where red headed people have been institutionally discriminated against, held in slavery purely because of their hair colour, and so on?

Thanks.

Here's an article about ginger discrimination from the BBC.

A red-haired family claims to have been driven from their Newcastle home because of abuse. Why is the harassment of redheads dismissed as just harmless fun?

Here's a joke. "What's the difference between a terrorist and a redhead?"
Here's the punchline. "You can negotiate with a terrorist."

Is this offensive? If it was made in your workplace, within hearing of a redheaded colleague, would you make a fuss? Probably not.

But mock someone's ethnicity, religion or sexuality and you will attract the beady eye of management. Make a sexist joke and prepare to be dismissed as an antediluvian relic.

Read more at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6725653.stm

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Can you point me to any location now or period in history where red headed people have been institutionally discriminated against, held in slavery purely because of their hair colour, and so on?

Thanks.

I'm pretty sure that at the time of "witch hunts" you were more likely to be suspected of being a witch if you had red hair.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I know an Anthropologist who can't get work in Australia. Apparently in Australia the majority of employment opportunities in this area require you to belong to a particular race.

 

[Plugger35]

Can you point me to any location now or period in history where red headed people have been institutionally discriminated against, held in slavery purely because of their hair colour, and so on?

Thanks.

Well I don't see how slavery of black people is any more relevant today than people with red hair being treated as witches and being burnt at the stake or drowned in medieval times.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Can you point me to any location now or period in history where red headed people have been institutionally discriminated against, held in slavery purely because of their hair colour, and so on?

Thanks.

People weren't held in slavery because of their skin color either.
Slaves were sourced from Africa becasue it was found that a supply of slaves could be gained from there.
Not all the various people of Africa were subjected to slavery, and the color was incidental. It did make it easy to label the people though.
Hence in the USA at the time, if you saw a black person, they were obviously a slave.
This attitude certainly did not occur on the west coast of Africa where people were also enslaved.

Why do the Americans have a dreadful reputation regarding slavery while the Chinese don't? Because by behaving even worse and neutering their slaves, the Chinese ensured that there were no annoying descendents with chips on their shoulders.

 

[invinciBlues]

It was clearly INTENDED to be racist, but the moron who did it missed the mark completely and therefore it's not.

I've said before, it's like someone saying an Italian has slopey eyes or that Asians loves Spaghetti - it's not racist, it's just some fool attempting to be racist and failing badly.

Intent is the word of the day here. Just because they stuffed it up doesnt make it less racist.

Intent is what fuels the mind into acting out, and through the anonymity of the internet such a person is able to say things they would ordinarily keep behind closed doors.

Using Asian examples, there's a number that are for the peoples of different Asian countries. By your "logic" if I call a Chinese person a slope (slur used for Vietnamese), then they shouldn't be offended?

But wait! I'm only using it to describe the gradient of their eyes. Its the technical definition of the word, so therefore it isn't racist.

 

[kfc1]

Intent is the word...

A key point.

The person receiving the communication has to make a judgement of the intent of the person giving the communication.

These days, plenty of people find it far too easy to jump to the assumption that something is said with racist intent.

I would argue that people who who jump to such conclusions are more likely to have a racist mentality than anyone else. That sub-conscious, or otherwise, continual seeking out of racism only helps to * progress towards an equal, racist-free society (well as close as we can get).

 

[invinciBlues]

I'm pretty sure that at the time of "witch hunts" you were more likely to be suspected of being a witch if you had red hair.

A couple minutes go by...

Well I don't see how slavery of black people is any more relevant today than people with red hair being treated as witches and being burnt at the stake or drowned in medieval times.

And then we have something which was "pretty sure" then touted as fact. lol.

Firstly, the witch hunts you're referring to didn't occur in "medieval" times. Thats just priceless in its ignorance

Secondly, there is a slur from the witch hunts (probably even earlier, maybe even medieval times!) that survives to this day.

F*****.

Now, some of you will know correctly that this is a collective noun for a bundle of sticks. Good for you. But I doubt many of you have figured out the connection between a "bundle of sticks" and a "homosexual" (but I bet the penny is dropping now). Yes, in days of yore, when a man was sentenced to death for a crime of an especially heinous nature against god/country/king he was to be hung, drawn and quartered. Like Braveheart was. For a woman who committed a crime of a similar nature she was to be burnt at the stake. Like Joan of Arc.

So, a gay guy back then was deemed to be to be a woman, and was to be burnt at the stake for crimes against god. "Death by F***** and fire" the sentence passed was called.

But how does this relate to the thread?

Two ways:

Number one; How many of homophobes that scream "F*****" at a gay guy passing by know the extent and history of the word?

Very few I'd imagine. All they know is that its offensive and cannot be interpreted any other way. Parallels can be, and are being drawn to Daws and KFC. Bigoted Australians know that in the US its universally accepted as racism, but don't understand it fully. Probably due to having never left the country.

Idiot Australians then claim its not racist because they also like KFC and are being deliberately obtuse by refusing the context of the image (Its not a meme. its about as much of a 'meme' as Milhouse is), by claiming that in Australia Sudanese are free to eat KFC as KFC doesnt refuse service based upon skin colour (well no s**t, Sherlock).

Putting your head in the sand and going "la la la cant hear you la la la" doesn't change the fact the intent of the pic is a racist stereotype used to illicit a moral response.

And secondly;

The "F*****" example relates to the thread thusly (I just like using the "thusly". I know its not a real word):

Their great grandfathers were slaves, so what? That doesn't mean they were slaves themselves. They're free people.

There are other posts with a similar line of thinking, but this was the first I found.

So, because centuries ago some gay guys were burnt at the stake, its OK to call them F***** now, because hey, its not like were actually gonna burn them at the stake or anything, and they couldnt have possibly known any of those guys, so whats the harm?

Really showing your true colours here BigFooty.

 

[invinciBlues]

A key point.

The person receiving the communication has to make a judgement of the intent of the person giving the communication.

These days, plenty of people find it far too easy to jump to the assumption that something is said with racist intent.

I would argue that people who who jump to such conclusions are more likely to have a racist mentality than anyone else. That sub-conscious, or otherwise, continual seeking out of racism only helps to * progress towards an equal, racist-free society (well as close as we can get).

Lots of rhetoric, very little substance. And not very grounded in its reasoning.

If I were to hazard a guess at your age, I'd peg you as 19. Am I right?

 

[Tas]

Can you point me to any location now or period in history where red headed people have been institutionally discriminated against, held in slavery purely because of their hair colour, and so on?

Thanks.

If male then probably every nightclub every week.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

A couple minutes go by...



And then we have something which was "pretty sure" then touted as fact. lol.

Firstly, the witch hunts you're referring to didn't occur in "medieval" times. Thats just priceless in its ignorance

Secondly, there is a slur from the witch hunts (probably even earlier, maybe even medieval times!) that survives to this day.

F*****.

Now, some of you will know correctly that this is a collective noun for a bundle of sticks. Good for you. But I doubt many of you have figured out the connection between a "bundle of sticks" and a "homosexual" (but I bet the penny is dropping now). Yes, in days of yore, when a man was sentenced to death for a crime of an especially heinous crime against nature/god/country/king he was to be hung, drawn and quartered. Like Braveheart was. For a woman who committed a crime of a similar nature she was to be burnt at the stake. Like Joan of Arc.

So, a gay guy back then was deemed to be to be a woman, and was to be burnt at the stake for crimes against god. "Death by F***** and fire" the sentence passed was called.

But how does this relate to the thread?

Two ways:

Number one; How many of homophobes that scream "F*****" at a gay guy passing by know the extent and history of the word?

Very few I'd imagine. All they know is that its offensive and cannot be interpreted any other way. Parallels can be, and are being drawn to Daws and KFC. Bigoted Australians know that in the US its universally accepted as racism, but don't understand it fully. Probably due to having never left the country.

Idiot Australians then claim its not racist because they also like KFC and are being deliberately obtuse by refusing the context of the image (Its not a meme. its about as much of a 'meme' as Milhouse is), by claiming that in Australia Sudanese are free to eat KFC as KFC doesnt refuse service based upon skin colour (well no s**t, Sherlock).

Putting your head in the sand and going "la la la cant hear you la la la" doesn't change the fact the intent of the pic is a racist stereotype used to illicit a moral response.

And secondly;

The "F*****" example relates to the thread thusly (I just like using the "thusly". I know its not a real word):




There are other posts with a similar line of thinking, but this was the first I found.

So, because centuries ago some gay guys were burnt at the stake, its OK to call them F***** now, because hey, its not like were actually gonna burn them at the stake or anything, and they couldnt have possibly known any of those guys, so whats the harm?

Really showing your true colours here BigFooty.

Yeah Yeah, and becase people are now using gay as a derogatory description ( Teenager: "That is so gay" )we will soon be told that that is no longer the acceptable term even though its the term they originally put forward as the most acceptable.
The redhead associated with witches thing is a fact.

OK witchhunts really originated after the medieval period. SO WHAT! The exact period isnt relevant at all.

If someone chooses to associate Sudanese with stupid USA derogatory crap, it says more about the idiot who did it. Personally i've never "got" the jokes about blacks and chicken and therefore not reacted. By not reacting the person doing it fails.

Sudanese don't have a particularly good reputation in Australia, and I think it as a lot to do with some of their background than anything else. Some have been brought up in a particularly savage and violent background, and even the victims of such a background may emulate aspects of it.
Its up to role models like Majak Daw ( he is whether he wants to be or not ) to breakdown these negative images.

 

[H2F]

If male then probably every nightclub every week.

hahaha !!!

 

[kfc1]

For there to be any impact on a supposed 'victim' of 'racism' the victim has to be offended. What I don't get is why people just don't give a ****?

Think about it, don't give a **** and:

1. The victim is still happy, cos they don't give a ****
2. Someone who makes an innocent comment doesn't get accosted with accusations of racism
3. Anyone who intended racism loses because the racism has no impact on the victim, i.e. it is essentially a gun without bullets
4. Everyone else is happy because they don't have to put up with this s**t
5. ???
6. Profit

Unfortunately the distinct lack of hardening the **** up just prolongs the problems and *s the progress of society

If you get offended and seek out racism, give it a go for a whole - stop giving a **** and see if it makes a difference. I can guarantee you will live a happier life, not giving a ****. Unfortunately some people would prefer the conflict*

* yes i see the irony of me saying that while posting in this thread - we all like to indulge every now and then

If I were to hazard a guess at your age, I'd peg you as 19. Am I right?

Long way off, mate, try again. I have wisdom beyond my years but am not yet a crusty old fuddy duddy.

 

[MrChristo]

A key point.

The person receiving the communication has to make a judgement of the intent of the person giving the communication.

These days, plenty of people find it far too easy to jump to the assumption that something is said with racist intent.

I would argue that people who who jump to such conclusions are more likely to have a racist mentality than anyone else. That sub-conscious, or otherwise, continual seeking out of racism only helps to * progress towards an equal, racist-free society (well as close as we can get).

Lots of rhetoric, very little substance. And not very grounded in its reasoning.

If I were to hazard a guess at your age, I'd peg you as 19. Am I right?

Rhetoric and substance, then go the "I'm clearly superior" route...(or more to the fact, the "you're clearly inferior" route )...Winning so far.

I tend to agree with the [young ] mans logic actually, and he's right, it's a point that is usually completely overlooked.

The key point in just about any form of racism...or any 'ism' for that matter...is an often illogical mistrust because someone is different. [Generally not assumed to be inferior]
(This is your alien...KILL IT! KILL IT!! )

...A muslim must be a terrorist right?...An athletic black guy in a hoody is clearly about to rob you, yeah?

At some point, if society is ever going to turn it all around (unlikely obviously, because despite being the most information open time in history, children only really ever want to know what their parents know, and so on down the line...), we simply have to trust that the guy next door is simply a guy next door, living out the same job/home-life as you...just that he has a towel on his head.

Equally, at that same point, the over-precious, rebel with a million cause types just have to sit back and trust that the overwhelming majority of people who occassionally quip that all black guys looks the same or they're not going there 'cause she has a ghetto booty don't actually burn crosses or meet in dark, seedy bars and plot how to keep the black man down.

For the most part, stereotypes have gotten to the point where they are actually funny...and I think that most intellegent people are open minded enough to see it.


[And hey, if kfc1 happens to be a hot chick, then I'd peg her at 19 too...

...and that is the most sexist thing I've ever said! ]

 

[invinciBlues]

The redhead associated with witches thing is a fact.

haha ok mate

Sudanese don't have a particularly good reputation in Australia, and I think it as a lot to do with some of their background than anything else. Some have been brought up in a particularly savage and violent background, and even the victims of such a background may emulate aspects of it.

You should watch more TodayTonight. Its doing you the world of good

 

[scatman john]

Can you point me to any location now or period in history where red headed people have been institutionally discriminated against, held in slavery purely because of their hair colour, and so on?

Thanks.

couldn't help myself.
pretty full on but worth the watch if you've got 9mins to spare...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeMvUlxXyz8&ob=av2e

 

[invinciBlues]

Rhetoric and substance, then go the "I'm clearly superior" route...(or more to the fact, the "you're clearly inferior" route )...Winning so far.

I tend to agree with the [young ] mans logic actually, and he's right, it's a point that is usually completely overlooked.

The key point in just about any form of racism...or any 'ism' for that matter...is an often illogical mistrust because someone is different. [Generally not assumed to be inferior]
(This is your alien...KILL IT! KILL IT!! )

You havent described "isms" as you call them. You've just described human nature. Its a strawman argument by saying "well, heading in the other direction, while being positive its just positive racism and therefore still racist. So we should keep things as they are, because thats what we all know and love, right?"

Like I said "lots of rhetoric" (ie: certain ideals being proposed), "little substance" (none of which are actually extrapolated on, or what can be done to achieve such pie in the sky hopes) and "not very grounded" (assumes a state of equality that already occurs).

Is it clearer for you now gramps?

...A muslim must be a terrorist right?

Terrorist has always been a subjective term. Looking back throughout history, its only a matter of being on the winning side to be called a "patriot" and on the losing side to be a "terrorist".

Compare: US war of Independence to Ireland war of independence.

...An athletic black guy in a hoody is clearly about to rob you, yeah?

I assume you're referring to the Trayvon Martin shooting?

At some point, if society is ever going to turn it all around (unlikely obviously, because despite being the most information open time in history, children only really ever want to know what their parents know, and so on down the line...), we simply have to trust that the guy next door is simply a guy next door, living out the same job/home-life as you...just that he has a towel on his head.

Equally, at that same point, the over-precious, rebel with a million cause types just have to sit back and trust that the overwhelming majority of people who occassionally quip that all black guys looks the same or they're not going there 'cause she has a ghetto booty don't actually burn crosses or meet in dark, seedy bars and plot how to keep the black man down.

For the most part, stereotypes have gotten to the point where they are actually funny...and I think that most intellegent people are open minded enough to see it.

I'm not saying the line isn't a fine one. Daniel Tosh is one of my favourite comedians. No one in their right mind would would say he's politically correct. He uses racial stereotypes, but I think he does so tactfully. And thats the point.

Edgy humour shouldnt be confused with overt racism. I think that is something we both agree on

 

[invinciBlues]

For there to be any impact on a supposed 'victim' of 'racism' the victim has to be offended. What I don't get is why people just don't give a ****?

Think about it, don't give a **** and:

1. The victim is still happy, cos they don't give a ****
2. Someone who makes an innocent comment doesn't get accosted with accusations of racism
3. Anyone who intended racism loses because the racism has no impact on the victim, i.e. it is essentially a gun without bullets
4. Everyone else is happy because they don't have to put up with this s**t
5. ???
6. Profit

Unfortunately the distinct lack of hardening the **** up just prolongs the problems and *s the progress of society

If you get offended and seek out racism, give it a go for a whole - stop giving a **** and see if it makes a difference. I can guarantee you will live a happier life, not giving a ****. Unfortunately some people would prefer the conflict*

* yes i see the irony of me saying that while posting in this thread - we all like to indulge every now and then

More rhetoric with little grounding in the real world.

Society doesn't work like that. The laws and social norms are based upon what society's views are. Not whether or not someone has been personally slighted.

Take speeding down Eastlink. You're doing 180km. Theres no-one else around, no cops, no cars, no nothing (double negative lol!). Camera flashes and you get booked (why the hell is there a camera out here anyways?).

You have to pay a fine or possibly lose your license?! WTF!??

But no one was hurt! For there to be an impact of speeding there has to be a victim! There weren't even any cops out there seeking to take offence at your speeding!

Its a victimless crime! Harden the **** up revenue collectors!

You know speeding is wrong, so we adjust our behaviour to conform to what society expects of us.

You know racism is wrong, so you should likewise adjust your behaviour to conform to what society expects of you.

Long way off, mate, try again. I have wisdom beyond my years but am not yet a crusty old fuddy duddy.

If you say so Buddy

 

[kfc1]

You know speeding is wrong, so we adjust our behaviour to conform to what society expects of us.

You know racism is wrong, so you should likewise adjust your behaviour to conform to what society expects of you.

Terrible analogy. Speeding is black and white. You know that when you drive over the speed limit, which is clearly defined, you are breaking the law. The definition of speeding does not change based on the driver of another car, or the law enforcement officer.

When you make a comment, you don't know how someone will react to it and assume your intent. The impact of that comment does change based on the key variable - the recipient.

A much better analogy would be the fat kid. Always gets jokes at his expensive, gets quite depressed etc. and thinks he's being discriminated against. Or he cops the jokes on the chin/lets the run of his back, hardens the **** up and gets on with his life. Those who actually seek to hurt him through insulting words have no impact and anyone who makes an innocent joke taking the piss about his weight or appearance is not howled down with cries of discrimination. Some fat blokes get really wound up if someone takes the piss, others get depressed, for others its like water off a ducks back and they don't care.

 

[Chief]

Dunno mate. I think it would take a pretty hard kid to put up with jokes about his personal appearance every day of his life. Stuff like that wears a person down IMO. You'll pick up on this as you grow older and modify your behaviour.

It's called maturity.

 

[invinciBlues]

Terrible analogy. Speeding is black and white. You know that when you drive over the speed limit, which is clearly defined, you are breaking the law. The definition of speeding does not change based on the driver of another car, or the law enforcement officer.

When you make a comment, you don't know how someone will react to it and assume your intent. The impact of that comment does change based on the key variable - the recipient.

The analogy was to illustrate to you how society perceives things, not how an individual does. When there is a dispute, the courts pass a judgement based on what they feel is a reflection of society's views as they stand presently.

When you, me, or anyone makes a comment, for the majority of people its pretty clear to make a reasonable assumption at what the intent is. Its actually pretty cut and dried in most cases. You can tell when someone was trying to "edgy, but didn't pull it off and comes across as an idiot", to "well, this guy is clearly trying to make racist assertion".

For more of an idea of what I mean, years back, (shortly after you were born no doubt) Sam Newman of Footy Show fame did a parody of Nicky Winmar with his face blacked out. I didn't think that was racist as he often dons costumes to look like his subject, but others did.

Likewise, when Michael Richards lost his s**t at a black man in his audience at a comedy gig, I found his words to be very racist.

A much better analogy would be the fat kid. Always gets jokes at his expensive, gets quite depressed etc. and thinks he's being discriminated against. Or he cops the jokes on the chin/lets the run of his back, hardens the **** up and gets on with his life. Those who actually seek to hurt him through insulting words have no impact and anyone who makes an innocent joke taking the piss about his weight or appearance is not howled down with cries of discrimination. Some fat blokes get really wound up if someone takes the piss, others get depressed, for others its like water off a ducks back and they don't care.

And that makes it OK?

Way off with the age was I? I'll reassess to 16. Am I getting warmer?