Like Halloween 3 wrong

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

White Teen In Blackface Responds To Black Critics: ‘Worry About Finding Your Dad’

If this question comes up again, here's a handy reference: Should I Dress in Blackface This Halloween?
Not really getting into the spirit of the holiday: Racist Craigslist post: No black trick-or-treaters

How to do Halloween right:

Comments

[oslo.livejournal.com]

The latter is exactly why we find blackface racist (and it was), the former has no roots in that tradition, has no disrespectful or racially-charged overtones, and shouldn't be problematic when done right.

*blinks*

You're citing Tropic Thunder as a non-problematic example of "blackface?" You might want to, uh, reconsider? If you're right, you're wrong - Downey's "blackface" becomes acceptable because it enables the movie's satirical point about an actor engaging in offensive "blackface." The audience is supposed to accept that Downey's character is doing something offensive and racist (consider also the movie's discussion relating to never going "full retard" - same idea).

It doesn't exist. Unfortunately, when many of us on the American right talk about the race-obsessions of many on the left, this sort of diversion is a great example of it.

You can act all wounded about it if you like, but you just gotta ask yourself one thing: would you do it in mixed racial company? You don't have to be "race-obsessed" to think that maybe it's better to attend a Halloween party with a costume you have to explain a few times than to go with the blackface just so that a few people might catch the Beverly Hills Cop reference. You're not going to stand in the middle of a crowd of people you're trying to get along with, explaining why it's ridiculous for them to shun you and your blackface because nothing about your mimicry of Beverly Hills Cop derives from the history of minstrelsy (other than, uh, donning the stereotypical features and defining mannerisms of a person from another race for the amusement of yourself and others...?)... are you?

The difference between "right" and "left" on this issue is this: you wouldn't do that, but you'll come whine online about how irritating it is to be expected to display some tact every once in a while, whereas the "left" looks at these kinds of intuitions and thinks, "You know why I don't do that? Because I don't want to be an asshole." It's got nothing to do with "race-obsessions." It's about being able to understand that someone else's reaction to your behavior can be a relevant consideration in determining its merit.

[leaf-kunoichi.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The whole joke about RDJ's character was because of the racism and he almost didnt take the role because of that. It was only after speaking to members of the NAACP and some other leaders in the community that he took the role to make the point. And even then, when the movie came out there was a big ado over it. Well, that and other aspects of the movie.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The difference between "right" and "left" on this issue is this: you wouldn't do that, but you'll come whine online about how irritating it is to be expected to display some tact every once in a while, whereas the "left" looks at these kinds of intuitions and thinks, "You know why I don't do that? Because I don't want to be an asshole." It's got nothing to do with "race-obsessions." It's about being able to understand that someone else's reaction to your behavior can be a relevant consideration in determining its merit.

This is what I don't understand about some folks who whine about "political correctness." I don't understand why that is the hill on which they want to plant their flag. "Damn it, I have the RIGHT to be an offensive jackass; how dare you tell me to show tact and behave like an adult in a society of other adults?"

Of course, I'd explain at least part of it as privilege; if you've never had to deal with stereotypes leveraged against you on a regular basis, you can more easily answer a simple request to show tact, and empathy with the experiences of others, with: "Geez, why are you making such a big DEAL out of this; it's just a JOKE!"

It shouldn't be a right vs. left issue. It's not a race-obsession issue. It's a "here's a revolutionary idea; let's stop being assholes and actually think about how our actions affect others" issue.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

At the end of he day, many of these folks deny that their actions HAVE any effect on the ground that the offended party CHOOSES to be offensive and the offender thinks he or she would not be offended.

The first one has a point within some very strict limits since reasonable people can actually be offended and the act of taking offense is frequently entirely rational. The second one is infantile thinking that refuses to do basic emotional maturity concepts that third graders are expected to grasp.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

"It's about being able to understand that someone else's reaction to your behavior can be a relevant consideration in determining its merit."

While that sounds perfectly reasonable, the value that's actually being promoted is that someone else's reaction to your behavior should always be the only consideration in determining its merit. And people are right to reject that.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

While that sounds perfectly reasonable, the value that's actually being promoted is that someone else's reaction to your behavior should always be the only consideration in determining its merit.

You should resist the urge to substitute strawmen for what people actually say.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

And you should resist the urge to label every point you're too lazy to address a straw man. I wouldn't promote the exact outcome of this survey (http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-there-be-legal-curbs-on-offensive-language) as scientific, but it's strong evidence that a significant percentage of the population adheres to the belief you just called a straw man.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

And you should resist the urge to label every point you're too lazy to address a straw man.

Says the guy citing a shite internet poll to "prove" his point.

What needs to be demonstrated, here, is that either I or the people with whom I share an affinity on this point are really claiming "that someone else's reaction to your behavior should always be the only consideration in determining its merit." Your link points to a poll that only asks whether "offensive" language should be subject to legal curbs. Its irrelevance to the point requiring demonstration ought to be self-evident, but it can be seen plainly enough once we note that nothing about the poll examines what counts as "offensive," or how "offensiveness" is to be determined. In other words, a person could adopt exactly what you would perceive to be an "appropriate" standard for determining the content of "offensive speech" (for example, one employing objective standards that are rationally defensible) and still come down on one side or the other in that poll.

I don't think that other people's reactions to my behavior are the only relevant considerations in determining its merit. I also don't think that most people who would reject modern "blackface" would take that view. You haven't demonstrated that anyone does. So, yeah - I think it's pretty fair to describe your initial response to me as presenting a strawman.

Now stop wasting my time.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Wrong. What needs to be demonstrated is that anyone, anywhere, at any time, has taken the view you are calling a straw man. Since someone, somewhere, has probably said just about anything you can think of, I set the bar higher by requiring that a significant number of people take that position. And the link I provided demonstrated exactly that, despite your wholly unsubstantiated claim of its irrelevance.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Wrong. What needs to be demonstrated is that anyone, anywhere, at any time, has taken the view you are calling a straw man.

No. A "strawman" is a misrepresentation of an argument that you present and criticize as though it were your opponent's actual position. A poor argument's being espoused by someone, somewhere, has nothing to do with whether the person you're engaging (i.e., me) has employed that same argument. That's not changed by "setting the bar higher" to require that a "significant number" take that position. If those other arguments being made by someone are to have any relevance to this discussion, you have to relate them back to what I've said - which is just that other people's reactions can be a relevant consideration in determining the merit of my own behavior.

Basically, you don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. Go google it or something. When I (correctly) described your response to me as a "strawman," I wasn't saying that literally no one espoused that position, because that's not what a "strawman" is. I was saying that you were ascribing to me a position that I do not in fact hold and that cannot be properly inferred from anything I'd said - a position that happened to be easy to reject as absurd. Hence, a "strawman."

And the link I provided demonstrated exactly that, despite your wholly unsubstantiated claim of its irrelevance.

I quite clearly did substantiate my claim that your internet poll was irrelevant to the point you claimed it supported - which, remember, was itself irrelevant to whether your claim was a strawman in the first place. You may not buy that substantiation, but normally that means you have to explain why you don't - you're not entitled to just dismiss it out of hand as inadequate.

Personally, I think that my substantiation was quite elegant. To repeat: We can't infer from the way one responds to a poll that asks whether "offensive speech" ought to be subject to "legal curbs" their views on how one is to determine what "offensive speech" is; and a person who follows what you would view to be an acceptable standard for "offensive speech" could consistently be either "for" or "against" legal curbs of such speech. If that's so, then the poll you've cited just doesn't tell us anything about whether anyone believes that the sole criterion for determining whether speech is offensive is how someone else reacts.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

"A 'strawman' is a misrepresentation of an argument that you present and criticize as though it were your opponent's actual position."

Agreed. And that's why it wasn't a strawman: I never represented it as your position. We're talking about social norms, not your personal opinions.