Racism & Other Prejudices

[shy ♡]

something that i've noticed while on deployments and actually traveling around the world and experiencing is that being P.C. just makes things worse. it's actually more racist to be publicly correct than not. you're stating "hey, i'm aware that you're different, and i'm gonna treat you special for some reason, because being nice to you will make me feel better"

which is a ton of bull. once you stop caring about that, i mean seriously, i've been places where a white guy called a black guy "nigger" and not be offended (both american). once we don't care about our differences, i think we'll be capable of seeing each other for who we really are.

This line of arguing is very uneasy for me. Firstly, there is the fact that I assume you are a white person saying this. Now yes, of course you can have your opinion, but realize that you are privileged in that you do not face the discrimination black people or any other person of colour does, so you have very little basis for saying what you are saying. If you are not white, I apologize for making this assumption.

As for "hey, i'm aware that you're different, and i'm gonna treat you special for some reason, because being nice to you will make me feel better"? You don't have to treat anyone special. Treat people with respect. Treat a black person with the same respect you'd treat a white person by not using words that would insult a black person. How is that special treatment?

Second, your first-hand-experience ("i've been places where a white guy called a black guy "n*" and not be offended (both american)"): means nothing. This is a case of one person reacting one way. It does not negate other people reacting another way.

And not caring about our differences: again I am going to assume you are white. It is very hard for a minority to stop caring about said minority when they are constantly being erased. If they stop caring, everybody else already doesn't care - then who does care? No one. Thus, the minority has to fight to be seen, and that means not ignoring their differences. Because, you know what? We are different. And that should be acknowledged, because sometimes what makes you different is a good thing! Why ignore that?

For example: if gay people ignored the fact they were gay, we would never have gotten gay marriage in NY, or stopped DADT. In fact, ignoring it is the entire point of DADT.

 

[goldenquagsire]

Why? I don't get what rights are being taken away by specifically censoring slurs.

No, you're missing the point of my argument. Censoring slurs doesn't take away rights but creating legislation against hate speech opens up loopholes and precedents which can be exploited to everyone's detriment.

I'm not against the idea of censoring hate speech, and tbh I'm not sure I would condone reversing the current legislation. Nevertheless, you have to consider the very serious potential consequences of doing so.

I find it difficult to take this analogy seriously when teen smoking here is actually on the rise.

Well, maybe that's the situation in your area, but around here smoking has definitely lost the allure it used to have and young people can be quite bitchy about their smoking peers (at least behind their backs).

There is so much grey area regarding definitions, it is almost pointless to try since nobody could ever come to a consensus.

But this is part of the problem! Since defining discrimination is so difficult (especially when dealing with unreconstructed elder lawmakers), it can (and almost certainly will) be manipulated for malicious intentions. A company who wishes to cover up, say, their atrocious environmental record could allege that they were being discriminated against by protesters with legitimate concerns. The protesters are prosecuted and the investigations into the company's activities is dropped.

Protecting minorities from oppression is important, and society shouldn't tolerate hate speech. However, if corporations and government bodies are allowed to gain greater power by misusing well-intentioned legislation then we all lose regardless of race, gender, sexuality, ability or otherwise.

 

[Eloi]

No, you're missing the point of my argument. Censoring slurs doesn't take away rights but creating legislation against hate speech opens up loopholes and precedents which can be exploited to everyone's detriment.

I'm not against the idea of censoring hate speech, and tbh I'm not sure I would condone reversing the current legislation. Nevertheless, you have to consider the very serious potential consequences of doing so.

Well, they can just be specific, like:

"Works with the words 'nigger', 'fag', 'trannie'/'tranny, 'poof', 'chink', (extended long list), used in a context that isn't to define the words or talk about the words as a political issue, will not be permitted to be held in state-funded facilities, and will not to be broadcast in nationwide television or radio. Any violations thereof will result in an $XXX-$XXX,XXX fine depending on the nature of the violation, with individual judicial legislators deciding the particular fine on a case-by-case basis."

 

[shy ♡]

Well, they can just be specific, like:

"Works with the words 'nigger', 'fag', 'trannie'/'tranny, 'poof', 'chink', (extended long list), used in a context that isn't to define the words or talk about the words as a political issue, will not be permitted to be held in state-funded facilities, and will not to be broadcast in nationwide television or radio. Any violations thereof will result in an $XXX-$XXX,XXX fine depending on the nature of the violation, with individual judicial legislators deciding the particular fine on a case-by-case basis."

Blah. Sorry to disagree, but I just can't go with this. I mean, banning books just because they have these words in them? Do you realize how many books will be banned because of that? Good books? To Kill a Mockingbird? Invisible Man?

Books often tell a story using characters. Those characters are not always good people, or they do bad things. You can't ban the book because of that.

Sorry, I just can't go along with banning words from being used at all.

 

[Eloi]

Blah. Sorry to disagree, but I just can't go with this. I mean, banning books just because they have these words in them? Do you realize how many books will be banned because of that? Good books? To Kill a Mockingbird? Invisible Man?

Books often tell a story using characters. Those characters are not always good people, or they do bad things. You can't ban the book because of that.

Sorry, I just can't go along with banning words from being used at all.

"Ban"? It wouldn't be banning, it would just mean you couldn't get them from a state-funded library, have them read aloud on national television, or do radio drama adaptations of those without those words being replaced. You could still, y'know, buy them, or crawl the deepweb and download them all you want.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

I think To Kill a Mockingbird is a good example of why this is a flawed idea. You're talking about making it unavailable in public libraries, which would limit the reach of this classic book tremendously (lots of people just don't have the money to buy all the books they want) while sort of negating its entire point. It's a book with a strong anti-racist message, and the slurs are used because they were commonplace at the time and I'm pretty sure they're used by the racist character of the book, but it's been a while since I've read it. Banning a book which is completely against racism and discrimination because it uses some stupid derogatory terms would be completely counter-productive.

 

[Eloi]

I think To Kill a Mockingbird is a good example of why this is a flawed idea. You're talking about making it unavailable in public libraries, which would limit the reach of this classic book tremendously (lots of people just don't have the money to buy all the books they want) while sort of negating its entire point. It's a book with a strong anti-racist message, and the slurs are used because they were commonplace at the time and I'm pretty sure they're used by the racist character of the book, but it's been a while since I've read it. Banning a book which is completely against racism and discrimination because it uses some stupid derogatory terms would be completely counter-productive.

"[It won't be subject to this if its] used in a context that [is] to talk about the words as a political issue." would put To Kill A Mockingbird as exempt from the law.

And I also don't understand the concept of "classics" anyway. I'll quote Mark Twain by saying: "Classic." A book which people praise and don't read.

(More personal note: I mean, I can understand why some like them, but I (unfortunately) can't really read a book without a woman-viewpoint/co-viewpoint character, which is almost never the case in the so-called 'classics'. So...yeah.)

 

[Mendatt]

So there's a kid whose parents tell it every day what a failure it is, how they hate it and how their lives would be better without it. And there's another kid whose parents sometimes smack it when it misbehaves.

Sounds like we'd both consider one of these kids abused, Aobaru, just different ones.

So...
We're talking about a kid that we're referring to as 'it'? :?
And I guess that in theory, the law could be that books written after the law was passed could not contain the banned words, but... I can't really see how banning words would help anyone. Or how it would. Umm. Work. People would still use the words. What would the chance of being caught be? I'd imagine it would be low. Implementing rules that you cannot enforce is a bad idea, and I can't imagine how this would be enforced.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

"[It won't be subject to this if its] used in a context that [is] to talk about the words as a political issue." would put To Kill A Mockingbird as exempt from the law.

And I also don't understand the concept of "classics" anyway. I'll quote Mark Twain by saying: "Classic." A book which people praise and don't read.

(More personal note: I mean, I can understand why some like them, but I (unfortunately) can't really read a book without a woman-viewpoint/co-viewpoint character, which is almost never the case in the so-called 'classics'. So...yeah.)

But To Kill a Mockingbird is written entirely from the viewpoint of a female character?? Sorry if I misunderstood but.

And oh right sorry somehow blanked that out, derr. What about books like Sapphire's Precious? The whole book is very much based on racism and discrimination but I'm pretty sure the main character, Precious uses the word 'nigger' and 'fag' a bunch of times. This isn't discussed persay but it's part of her character in the context of the story. Should it be banned?

Also yeah for me a classic book is just a book which survives the test of time and still has relevant themes years later, for instace even though everyone talking about Twilight now no one's going to remember it in fifty years. To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, 1984 etc still remain very interesting and relevant years later. There are plenty of books by women writers that are widely regarded as classics, such as the works of the Brontë sisters, Sylvia Plath, To Kill a Mockingbird, Maya Angelou, etc.
And sorry if calling certain books classics makes me a dumbass by Mark Twain's definition I guess.

 

[Eloi]

But To Kill a Mockingbird is written entirely from the viewpoint of a female character?? Sorry if I misunderstood but.

I know, I was just talking generally, not in specific to that.

And oh right sorry somehow blanked that out, derr.

Yeah, I often kinda skim legal jargon text too a lot. That has unsurprisingly led to bad stuff. x3

What about books like Sapphire's Precious? The whole book is very much based on racism and discrimination but I'm pretty sure the main character, Precious uses the word 'nigger' and 'fag' a bunch of times. This isn't discussed persay but it's part of her character in the context of the story. Should it be banned?

If enough people want it to be.

And who said anything about banning? It'd just not be able to be held in government-owned buildings.

Also yeah for me a classic book is just a book which survives the test of time and still has relevant themes years later, for instace even though everyone talking about Twilight now no one's going to remember it in fifty years. To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, 1984 etc still remain very interesting and relevant years later.

1984 had the best structure and prose in a story I've ever seen. The others, eh,.

There are plenty of books by women writers that are widely regarded as classics, such as the works of the Brontë sisters, Sylvia Plath, To Kill a Mockingbird, Maya Angelou, etc.

Its more about the characters than the authors. Like, Ayn Rand has almost exclusively male view point characters, so I don't really read her books very far even if I find the general plot, setting, and philosophical ideas interesting.

And sorry if calling certain books classics makes me a dumbass by Mark Twain's definition I guess.

Nah, I just like popping Mark Twain adages whenever possible. He was fucking awesome.

 

[ultraviolet]

And who said anything about banning? It'd just not be able to be held in government-owned buildings.

I'm not sure why this would even be a good idea; all it would do is prevent people from accessing certain texts just because they have certain words in them. it's pretty well assumed that texts in a library aren't representative of a government's ideas already, so I don't see how it could be possibly misinterpreted that way in the first place. There are very few published books that have much of a racist slant; ones that have been published are almost always historical.

 

[goldenquagsire]

(More personal note: I mean, I can understand why some like them, but I (unfortunately) can't really read a book without a woman-viewpoint/co-viewpoint character, which is almost never the case in the so-called 'classics'. So...yeah.)

But that's the whole point of... well, any form of art you can think of. Getting the reader to see from the point of view of another person, regardless of how far removed the subject may be from their lives. It shouldn't matter what the reader's background is: if the author is effective, they should be able to make the reader empathise with their characters.

If you're making a comment on something Bechedel-related then that's fair enough. I agree that the lack of non-white male authors in the pre-20th century literary canon is disappointing, but that's simply a historical fact and to my mind it doesn't undermine the achievements of the WASP authors. Besides, there's plenty of 'classic' women authors who also write female characters: the Brontes, Austen, Woolf. Maybe you haven't given them a chance.

 

[shy ♡]

And who said anything about banning? It'd just not be able to be held in government-owned buildings.

That is banning it. Many people get their books from libraries and can't get them elsewhere. They'd be screwed.

 

[Eloi]

But that's the whole point of... well, any form of art you can think of. Getting the reader to see from the point of view of another person, regardless of how far removed the subject may be from their lives. It shouldn't matter what the reader's background is: if the author is effective, they should be able to make the reader empathise with their characters.

If you're making a comment on something Bechedel-related then that's fair enough. I agree that the lack of non-white male authors in the pre-20th century literary canon is disappointing, but that's simply a historical fact and to my mind it doesn't undermine the achievements of the WASP authors. Besides, there's plenty of 'classic' women authors who also write female characters: the Brontes, Austen, Woolf. Maybe you haven't given them a chance.

I read fiction to be entertained. Characters I can't relate to are boring. Ergo, I don't read a lot of old fiction due to lack of characters I can relate to.

That is banning it. Many people get their books from libraries and can't get them elsewhere. They'd be screwed.

And what would they be missing out on that is sooo great yet contains racial slurs that can only be contextualized as sympathetically (from author-to-reader) derogatory?

 

[ultraviolet]

And what would they be missing out on that is sooo great yet contains racial slurs that can only be contextualized as sympathetically (from author-to-reader) derogatory?

the fact is that it's not up to you (or your taste in literature) to decide what texts are 'sooo great' and what should or shouldn't be available to the public. do you know how hard it is to publish racism? not only does it make an author look bad, it also makes the publishers, editors, legal team, and anyone involved with that book look bad. There is an entire process that goes on between an editor and an author before the book's even printed; avoiding things like hate speech is a large part of that. Publishing firms don't want anything to do with racism. When words like 'nigger' are used in published literature, it's usually used to portray a character a particular way (usually as racist, mind!), or to reference a historic context. also, I'm pretty sure there are legal implications of publishing and distributing hate speech.

 

[shy ♡]

And what would they be missing out on that is sooo great yet contains racial slurs that can only be contextualized as sympathetically (from author-to-reader) derogatory?

ALL THE BOOKS MENTIONED HERE. If I couldn't get them from the library I never would have read them - and yes even though they're classics (and in fact, because!) I've read them. And as uv said it isn't up to you and your tastes to decide whether they'd good or not. They're books and exist for a reason, and that reason is to be read.

Can I just say sometimes using derogatory words is important to a book? I mean how could you possibly write some books, like, sorry, To Kill a Mockingbird without the n word? I just can't. And if that book had never been written, or allowed to be read? :| Just because of a word? Yeah it's a derogatory word. Don't say it. But books aren't real life.

 

[goldenquagsire]

And what would they be missing out on that is sooo great yet contains racial slurs that can only be contextualized as sympathetically (from author-to-reader) derogatory?

Some of the most significant, influential anti-racist literature in history. By your criteria we would lose To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, countless others. We'd lose modern literature written by minority writers who include derogatory language because it is part of their experience.

Also, I just noticed:

Nah, I just like popping Mark Twain adages whenever possible. He was fucking awesome.

"Well, what of it? They'll all lie. Leastways all but the nigger. I don't know him. But I never see a nigger that wouldn't lie. Shucks! Now you tell me how Bob Tanner done it, Huck."

That's from chapter six of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain. Thought you should know.

 

[Eloi]

For one, I know my personal tastes don't dictate anything, hence why, say, Lord of the Rings wouldn't be not available. I don't even think my political tastes dictate anything. I'm just speaking hypothetically.

But anyway, did anyone miss out on me saying:

And what would they be missing out on that is sooo great yet contains racial slurs that can only be contextualized as sympathetically (from author-to-reader) derogatory?

As in, if the author's intent was anti-racist, than it couldn't be contextualized as a sympathetic attitude from the author to the reader as racist.

That's from chapter six of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain. Thought you should know.

I do know, I don't like any of Twain's fictional works (kind of dull), just his feminism and anti-religious-establishment...ism. Though again, I'm not sure if that could be contextualized as author-to-reader sympathetic attitudes for racism.

 

[Dannichu]

So...
We're talking about a kid that we're referring to as 'it'? :?

My hypothetical children are always its.

 

[Firelord Alex]

Not to mention the Color Purple. That book and movie are simply amazing.