Drop Examples of Indisputable Proof That Systemic Racism Still Exists in Here

[The Dude]

I've never found Maher to be remotely funny, but I think HBO made the right decision here. I just think we're getting really silly if we're going after comedians for irreverant humor.

[Landlord]

Maher is a shock jock who built his audience off of fake deep internet atheists.

[The Dude]

He's probably ruffled the most feathers by harshly criticizing religion, but that's mostly because many people are extraordinarily sensitive about their religion being criticized.

 

Most of his schtick is bashing political conservatives, so that's probably how he's built most of his audience.

[zoogs]

What Landlord said. He's a shock jock. And also what Dude said. His shtick is smug, self-satisfied irreverence. He's also not the victim here. Though it wouldn't surprise me if he was trying to make himself into one.

[zoogs]

This per se is not "evidence" ('every case' is different is a fair appeal), but it's a juxtaposition that is both jarring and not the least bit surprising. They also reflect larger trends in how we craft our narratives about people of color in different ways. So it's good to see these sorts of defaults being challenged; this should be done more often, by all of us.

 

One guy was involved in a carjacking and armed robbery at age 16; the other robbed five banks when he was 22-23. 

 

Hopwood (left) was endorsed by his state bar association to take the bar exam and become a lawyer if he passed; the WA Supreme Court allowed this based on the recommendation. Betts (right) has already passed the bar exam and is now facing scrutiny from his bar association committee before they make an exception; perhaps the process works differently in different states. 

[BigRedBuster]

I love how she left the idiots address visible. 

 

 

[Enhance]

On 8/24/2017 at 9:33 AM, zoogs said:

This per se is not "evidence" ('every case' is different is a fair appeal), but it's a juxtaposition that is both jarring and not the least bit surprising. They also reflect larger trends in how we craft our narratives about people of color in different ways. So it's good to see these sorts of defaults being challenged; this should be done more often, by all of us.

 

One guy was involved in a carjacking and armed robbery at age 16; the other robbed five banks when he was 22-23. 

 

Hopwood (left) was endorsed by his state bar association to take the bar exam and become a lawyer if he passed; the WA Supreme Court allowed this based on the recommendation. Betts (right) has already passed the bar exam and is now facing scrutiny from his bar association committee before they make an exception; perhaps the process works differently in different states. 

There are so many little idiosyncrasies surrounding this type of behavior and, the crazy part to me is, we often don't even realize we're doing them. We see a lot of it in journalism almost by default.

 

A really good example is descriptions of criminals or arrested individuals. Often times, if the individual is black or hispanic, it's used as a point of reference. 'Police are looking for a black man, 6'2"...' But, if it's a white man, it will sometimes be 'Police are a looking for a man, 6'2"...' 

[Moiraine]

Oldie but goodie.

 

 

 

[knapplc]

Only problem I have with that Bieber/Sherman comparison is the obvious picking/choosing of descriptors. I've seen Sherman called a lot better and I've seen Bieber called a lot worse.

[Landlord]

7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Only problem I have with that Bieber/Sherman comparison is the obvious picking/choosing of descriptors. I've seen Sherman called a lot better and I've seen Bieber called a lot worse.

 

 

I agree with you, but that's comparing the macro with the micro - or, disputing a general argument with a specific rebuttal, which misses the point.

 

I certainly wouldn't expect you to disagree with the premise that a lot of the words our culture uses for black/minority people, such as thug, are subtly coded racism.

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Only problem I have with that Bieber/Sherman comparison is the obvious picking/choosing of descriptors. I've seen Sherman called a lot better and I've seen Bieber called a lot worse.

 

 

I don't think Bieber was called a thug when he broke the law. That's the point - it's a word reserved for Black people.

[knapplc]

Of course there's racism, and of course that's expressed toward Sherman in a different manner than it's expressed toward Bieber or Grimm. But those are not apples-to-apples comparisons, they are the worst of the reactions directed toward Sherman and the most dismissive directed toward Bieber & Grimm.

 

Do people really believe that the worst Bieber detractors ONLY said he was "misguided?"  Or the worst Grimm detractors ONLY said he "Behaved inappropriately?"

 

 
I mean guys, don't be lazy.

[Landlord]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Do people really believe that the worst Bieber detractors ONLY said he was "misguided?"  Or the worst Grimm detractors ONLY said he "Behaved inappropriately?"

 

 

I don't believe that at all, no.

 

What I believe is that the dominant narrative says those things. Nothing should be defined by the 'worst' parts, but by the mean or the average. You can discredit any claim by pointing out the extreme fringe examples.

[knapplc]

And that's not what's being done there. We're taking the most extreme reaction to Sherman and the most dismissive reaction to Bieber & Grimm and saying they're the same.

 

These are not "indisputable examples" of racism.  They're disparate examples of reactions to people.

[Landlord]

I agree that that whole thing is not really applicable to the point of the thread.

 

 

But I don't think that the thug label is the most extreme reaction to Sherman. I think I saw that as a very common reaction amongst friends/acquaintances on social media. I think I might have even called him a thug after the whole Crabtree thing years ago.