Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967) review

Rated: 4 / 5

“A love story of today.”  Well, maybe not so much anymore.  Or maybe it is.  This film has surprising relevancy to today, and I personally find that to be a bit sad.

So, in case you haven’t ever seen this movie, which I suggest you do considering I’ve given it a 4/5 score and my opinion is always right and better than everyone else’s, it’s a racially charged film.  Yet it is subdued in how it tackles the racism issue.  It’s not about violence between blacks and whites, niggers and crackers, oh no.  It’s about them coming together.  The legendary Sidney Poitier would be reason enough for me to want to see this, but the rest of the cast is as great as he is in this film.  He plays a black doctor (specifying that just in case any of you mistakenly think he plays a white doctor) who has fallen for a white woman nearly 10 years his junior played by Katharine Houghton, who has likewise fallen for him.  Nearly love at first sight, they decide to get engaged within the first 10 days of starting their relationship.  But then it comes time to meet the parents.

In all seriousness, this film seems to have borrowed elements from this movie, including the dad using his connections to find out more about the potential husband.

Awkwardness ensues, and it provides some funny moments and dialogue.  This film balances humor and drama perfectly, never going over-the-top for the sake of cheap laughs.  But things get even more awkward when the daughter of the family, who clearly likes to rush into things obliviously and innocently, convinces the mother and father of her fiance to also come to the house to meet her family, unaware that there might be an issue with this.

Stress eating.

The film shines with the dialogue and character interactions, which is all that is really needed for dramas like this.  Seeing the mother’s reaction to seeing the boyfriend for the first time, the father’s delayed reaction, and the immediate reaction of the boyfriend’s parents to seeing that he has a white girlfriend.  Such great hilarious (but never overdone) moments.  Hell, even the black maid doesn’t hide her negative attitude towards the boyfriend, thinking that he’s only interested in the girlfriend because he wants to take advantage of her and her family’s wealth.  Awkwardness is in abundance throughout this flick, yet it’s done in such a great way.

This isn’t one of those films where the parents (at least the white ones when they become aware of the issue) try to act polite for the sake of leaving things unsaid that cry out to be said.  The dialogue that I would normally expect a film like this (especially by today’s standards) to only show up near the end of the film actually shows up near the beginning.  Both sides admit the awkwardness of the issue, and are aware that this is different and daring for the time period (save for the girlfriend who was raised in such a way as to not think there would be any issue or awkwardness to be had with blacks and whites intermingling, which is ironic considering her parents raised her this way and admit to doing so, but mention to each other that, “We taught her to view negros as no different than whites, but we never told her not to marry one.”).  The boyfriend doctor even has a private discussion about this with the parents laying it all on the table, letting them know he’s as aware of this awkwardness as they are.  And the parents attempt to give this whole thing a chance.  After all, the mother acknowledges that she’s never seen her daughter this happy before, and she can’t help but feel happy for her even though a part of her is against this.  It made me wonder where the hell the film was going from there at that point, because this semi-acceptance tends to be where films like this usually end (or lack thereof, as was the case for the horror equivalent Get Out).  But nope, it’s only just gotten started.

I mean, the father tries to be accepting, and we see him and his wife drive around town briefly discussing this and see the father’s temper start to boil as he becomes more and more irritable as time goes on and he lets other things get to him to make his anger rise even further; but it didn’t seem like enough to keep the film afloat during the rest of the runtime.  Then we find out the boyfriend’s parents are coming over.  At that point, I was on-board for the rest of the ride.

Another element I loved is that all the characters are portrayed with flaws, that no one is perfect, not even Sidney Poitier’s character (to my surprise).  The mother, obviously easily prone to emotion and shock, though she does tend to take the more optimistic joyful route for channeling her emotions.  The father, and old man he tends to be set in his old traditional ways, yet makes an effort to be accepting to that of the new ways.  Which father and mother from which side of the family?  Both actually.  The parents on both sides are quite similar, despite the pigmentation differences and economic status (the white family being upper-class, the black family barely middle-class).  This in part is what leads the white father to come to this realization near the end after having a private talk with the father and mother of the boyfriend, separately, which he acknowledges with the line, “I’ll be a son of a bitch.”  The girlfriend, she’s naive and prefers to rush things without seeing the dangers as to why she should be more aware of how society would view an interracial relationship, let alone the dangers of rushing into something so life-changing so quickly, and is arguably too positive and optimistic.  And the boyfriend, well, he has the issue of not wanting to do too much without the approval of opposing parties, even though he’s quite level-headed.  I love this because if there’s anything I hate in movies, it’s seeing characters who are perfect when it comes to wisdom/knowledge/personality/attitude.  It’s flaws that make them human, and humans are what we have in this film.

Earlier I mentioned the film has a relevancy to today that I find to be a bit sad.  Now I’ll expand on that.  Back during this tumultuous time period the film was made, the 1960s, that’s when black rights were all the rage, and when riots and clashes began that initiated the first major change and progression for the rights of black people since the end of the civil war in 1865.  Films like this were bound to show up, and this isn’t the only one, nor even the only one that Sidney Poitier would star in (see In the Heat of the Night, also made in 1967, also highly recommended).  Then there’s Night of the Living Dead in the following year of 1968.  That’s at least 3 major hit classics people still watch today that tackle the issue of racism.  Though in all fairness, Night of the Living Dead was primarily about how we’re our own worst enemy and we’ll tear each other apart even when there’s external forces out to destroy us; the racism aspect is subtle in that it’s not even mentioned, but it’s there, as that’s one of the aspects Americans were fighting over during that time period, and sadly, even so today.  And all 3 films shared the same message, either we learn to live together in peace and harmony in spite of our difference, or suffer and be annihilated either from each other or something else that could’ve been beaten if only we weren’t killing ourselves.  Well, 2 out of the 3 mentioned films went for the more optimistic route, so as they say, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

The relevancy can be seen in films like the aforementioned Get Out, and also in the more recent Detroit.  The difference between films today and films back then (or at least regarding most films prior to 2012) is that films today tend to promote the message of, “We can’t get along, so may black power rule to offset the white power rule of the past,” rather than the past message of, “We can get along if we just get to know each other better and see that we’re all human.”  And people wonder why some say the film industry is shitty these days.  The interesting thing is though, this film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner has much of the advice and answers to the issues and questions of today, yet not enough people seem to be aware of this, and focus on the present where the answers and advice tend to be the wrong ones.

Consider this discussion between the boyfriend and his father during the latter half of the runtime:

“Have you thought what people would say about you?  Why, in 16 or 17 States, you’d be breakin’ the law!  You’d be criminals!  And say they changed the law; that don’t change the way people feel about this thing!”

At least the 16 States remark is outdated by today’s standards, so we’ve got that going for us.  But that last sentence is definitely something to consider.  After all, the Southerners (primarily) didn’t hold much regard for the laws regarding black rights during the aftermath of the civil war (see Free State of Jones for a decent film highlighting this aspect, even if it ultimately promotes the white-guilt “racism is alive today” message).  Hell, even making booze illegal didn’t stop people from making it and drinking it.  And don’t even get me started on the drug war (even though it should be pointed out that giving drugs to gangs and cartels and making them rich enough to have private armies with top of the line equipment and weaponry should make people hesitant at the very least to try that stuff out).  Changing the law is one thing, but you also have to get people to understand why it is that it’s being changed, and listen to their retorts which may or may not provide reasoning as to why the law shouldn’t be changed.

Next quote, with the son’s response to his dad:

“You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it’s got to be!  And not until your whole generation has laid down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs!  You understand, you’ve got to get off my back!”

Scarily how relevant that line has become in the more recent years, except that most aren’t alive from the generation that dialogue refers to.  Rather, the dead generation is being dug up from the grave and reanimated like some fucking zombie from a Romero film rather than remaining in the state of resting in peace.  Something I’ve discussed in the past regarding how irrelevant and outdated this should all be, yet some in positions of power refuse to let the dead stay dead and bring it all back out in fashion like everyday should be Halloween so they can profit from this destructive merchandise they sell.  And somehow this is being done while making it borderline taboo to sit down and have an honest discussion about racism, especially in regards to facts and statistics (but emotion is all the rage).

xlarge

“You think of yourself as a colored man.  I think of myself as a man.”

This is the ultimate message that should be pushed today, even though it angers/saddens/frustrates me that it’s even necessary to push such a message rather than it just being common sense.  That no one, black or white, should be automatically associated with a race for the sake of stating they’re different, they’ve been treated different, and should thus be given different specialized treatment.  No more than someone who voted for Trump should be automatically associated with neo-nazis, white supremacists, racists, Milo fan, Fox News fan, or anti-net-neutrality, no more than someone who didn’t vote for Trump (ie voted for Hillary or Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or some made up Barney the Dinosaur figure) is automatically associated with, well, the opposite of all that.  Like how in this movie the black maid of the house associates the boyfriend with some shady black individuals she seems to have experience with from her own past.  Individualism!  Willing to hear the reasons as to why someone would do something someone would find outrageous and repulsive, or why someone would do something that goes against one’s own personal political beliefs.  You know, like how everyone in the film (eventually) sat down and listened to the reasons why the black boyfriend and white girlfriend would want to marry each other, something that was also considered outrageous and repulsive during (and prior to) the 60s.  Makes me wonder how people today would treat a film that’s just like this made today, only with the races reversed, having a white man wanting to marry a black woman and having both go to her parent’s home, and have the white man’s parents come over too, and see how things play out from there (that 2005 film Guess Who with Ashton Kutcher and Bernie Mac doesn’t count!).

“You listen to me. You say you don’t want to tell me how to live my life. So what do you think you’ve been doing? You tell me what rights I’ve got or haven’t got, and what I owe to you for what you’ve done for me. Let me tell you something. I owe you nothing!”

That’s another thing about today, people telling others how to live.  Fine and good, but give good reasons, and not just some “living in the past” bullshit.  Because while it is true that the past matters, the errors of the past shouldn’t be promoted as a reason to live a certain way today if those errors are easily rectified, or have already been rectified.  But I’ve already spoken enough on why the past shouldn’t rule the present (and also why the past shouldn’t be forgotten as it has lessons to be remembered for today, a tricky line apparently that gets crossed too much in these recent years).  But I will say this is a film that everyone today should watch and pay careful attention to.  Not just because it’s a great classic film (though that would be reason enough), but also for the message it has.  The lines of dialogue that provide answers to many of the racial issues that have unnecessarily spun up in our time.  The positive message of coming together in spite of our differences.

With that in mind, I’ll leave this off on a final quote from the movie:

“Now Mr. Prentice, clearly a most reasonable man, says he has no wish to offend me but wants to know if I’m some kind of a *nut*. And Mrs. Prentice says that like her husband I’m a burned-out old shell of a man who cannot even remember what it’s like to love a woman the way her son loves my daughter. And strange as it seems, that’s the first statement made to me all day with which I am prepared to take issue… cause I think you’re wrong, you’re as wrong as you can be. I admit that I hadn’t considered it, hadn’t even thought about it, but I know exactly how he feels about her and there is nothing, absolutely nothing that you son feels for my daughter that I didn’t feel for Christina. Old- yes. Burned-out- certainly, but I can tell you the memories are still there- clear, intact, indestructible, and they’ll be there if I live to be 110. Where John made his mistake I think was in attaching so much importance to what her mother and I might think… because in the final analysis it doesn’t matter a damn what we think. The only thing that matters is what they feel, and how much they feel, for each other. And if it’s half of what we felt- that’s everything. As for you two and the problems you’re going to have, they seem almost unimaginable, but you’ll have no problem with me, and I think when Christina and I and your mother have some time to work on him you’ll have no problem with your father, John. But you do know, I’m sure you know, what you’re up against. There’ll be 100 million people right here in this country who will be shocked and offended and appalled and the two of you will just have to ride that out, maybe every day for the rest of your lives. You could try to ignore those people, or you could feel sorry for them and for their prejudice and their bigotry and their blind hatred and stupid fears, but where necessary you’ll just have to cling tight to each other and say “screw all those people”!”

 

Detroit review and discussion of Hollywood’s portrayal of racism over the years

Rated: 3/5*
* = with caveats, especially with dialogue that self-references the year.  “Helloooo? This is 1967!  I can do whatever I want!”

Introduction

Ok, so this movie. I had reservations going in. But there are times where I get sick and tired of being on edge, of having such a high amount of skepticism, of believing I’m in the minority of seeing things as they are and wondering if I’m wrong because of that. There are times I just want to be entirely wide open, entirely accepting, entirely trusting, putting my emotions on the line. Of watching a film and accepting what is given at face value. To not be so critical, because so many others aren’t. A part of me hates having my guard up against emotional manipulation so often for so many movies (especially of films made from around 2012 and onwards).

But I’ve been emotionally manipulated too many times in the past. I’ve seen that the things I’ve believed in and been taught to believe in are lies too many times. I fought on the wrong side for too long to risk going back so easily. It’s become a part of my nature now to watch any racially charged film like this (or any documentary for that matter) with a skeptical mind. I hate myself for doing this because it means I am usually unable to fully appreciate a good film containing subject matter like this upon first watch. But I would hate myself more if I did go into this blindly and putting my faith in the idea that it’s honest, that it’s made with honest intentions, has good lessons and/or entertainment within it, only to find out later on that it wasn’t.

Things weren’t always like this. Most films made from the late 60s to the early 2000s tended to be honest about these sorts of things, about their intentions, about their entertainment. Any mistakes made tended to be made in blissful ignorance rather than with intent. Like Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus film and how it portrays gladiators as nice family friendly guys when they weren’t slaughtering each other or Roman soldiers. Or those sword and sorcery films of the 70s and 80s which, well let’s face it all of them were pretty ridiculous in several ways. But there was a charm about it all, an innocence to it. Like how a child repeats what he hears and doesn’t consider the context of his words. But in this day and age, the child is grown up, and is fully aware of the context. We should likewise be aware, and act with wisdom.

Continue reading

13th review

Rated: 2/5

America. Home to 5% of the world’s population.
America, which has 25% of the world’s total prison population. The highest rate of incarceration in the world.

For a country so great that illegals would want to flock to it, one would wonder why it is that the prison population is so high (or did I just answer that question?). I have some ideas as to why that is, but let’s allow the documentary a shot.

We are the products of history that our ancestors chose… if we’re white. If we’re black we are products of the history that our ancestors most likely did not choose. Yet here we all are together, the products of that choices that we have to understand that in order to escape from it.

 

The 13th amendment to the constitution makes it unconstitutional for someone to be held as a slave. In other words it grants freedom, to all Americans. There are exceptions, including criminals. There’s a clause, a loophole.

The 13th amendment, signed by Lincoln.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865. — www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html

This “loophole” doesn’t seem to be a loophole so much as something clearly spelled out. If you’re a criminal, you will pay for your crimes. Personally, I always thought forced community service would be the best way, being forced to doing hard labor to improve communities as opposed to just staying locked in a building for several years.
But soon after the 13th amendment got signed, a large majority of blacks were arrested for the sake of exploiting this aspect of the 13th amendment. Arrested for minor petty stuff, and for stuff more than petty I’m sure. Similar things happen today, but with the slavery aspect downplayed.

 

Continue reading

Discussions on Racism

So it begins.  Been getting feedback from my Do the Right Thing review in my entry on letterboxd, and I’m hoping the same thing will happen on the other platforms the review is linked to.  I’m going to post the back-and-forth discussions I’ve been having.  Because I’ve learned from experience that if I end up posting something on a website other than my own that is on a very hot-button topic, there’s a chance enough people will bitch about it to where they can convince the moderators to remove the entire entry, along with the comments and discussions.  This happened once without warning to my The Red Pill review on letterboxd.  This blog entry will be updated so long as the conversation continues.  Because racism is a topic that should be discussed.  So without further ado:

  • i was ready to answer the questions you brought up in the first paragraph because, even though it shouldn’t still need to be taught in this day and age, some people still don’t understand how racism really works. and i want them to learn. so i’m glad to teach. but as i read more of this “review,” it became obvious that you are – despite the fact that you will probably deny it – an ignorant racist.
    so i won’t waste my time trying to teach you because you won’t even spend the time to learn.

Me:

I’m willing to listen. I’m willing to learn. Are you?

Being ignorant means being uneducated, uninformed, unaware, sometimes intentionally so. I’m inviting conversation here, because I would love to see and hear opposing viewpoints from those who themselves are not ignorant, or at the very least don’t believe they are (at the very least not being a troll). Making the assumption that I won’t spend the time to learn arguably makes you the ignorant one. Care to prove me wrong on that?

As for racism, you imply that I don’t know how it really works, or at the very least that my understanding on how it works is misguided. Can’t know how I’m misguided unless it’s pointed out to me. But keep in mind, this can go both ways.

I only enjoy conversations with people who intend to influence my thoughts/beliefs only if they themselves are willing to likewise have their own thoughts/beliefs influenced. I don’t like one-sided conversations. This “review”, it’s every bit as much of a review as it is a strong encouragement for conversation starting. Do I not encourage such in the 3rd to the last paragraph?

  • i mentioned you don’t spend the time to learn because your review just shows that you haven’t learned basic social rules/morals. saying the n word dozens of times doesn’t make it acceptable, it just shows you don’t understand what’s wrong with using it. if you didn’t realize that, you most likely ignored anybody who’s ever said so. that’s why i feel like you don’t genuinely care to change your views

Me:

Ah, and there’s the part you’re missing. It’s not that I haven’t learned basic social rules/morals, it’s that I believe those social rules/morals should be challenged, especially when thinking about the how and why of those social rules doesn’t entirely add up in my opinion. What I’m expecting from an upright socially outstanding strict rule-following high moral individual such as yourself is an argument on why those rules should be followed as opposed to being changed.

Why should saying nigger dozens of times be any less acceptable than saying shit/hell/damn/fuck/bitch/twat/cunt/dick/asshole/pussy dozens of times? If it’s because I’m white, I’d argue that’s racist against whites. See the double standard there? If you’re argument is because all of the above is not acceptable, then I’d say that’s problem with society nowadays, too thin-skinned, which is why there’s so many whiners and not enough people willing to focus on more important issues. Though on the other hand, the small stuff makes up the big stuff.

  • Why should saying nigger dozens of times be any less acceptable than saying shit/hell/damn/fuck/bitch/twat/cunt/dick/asshole/pussy dozens of times?


    Let’s take for example asshole to compare, the eventual issue with such a word is probably the connotations to something which is socially deemed as ”dirty” (and the same can be said for some other words there as well). The n-word on the other hand, has connotations to years of slavery, abuse, discrimination and other kinds of mistreatments of a specific group.

    Don’t you see the difference between something associated by a perceived dirty thing and something associated with the abuse, discrimination and even murder of people (not unlikely, people related to the person taking offence)?

Me:

Let’s take for example asshole to compare, the eventual issue with such a word is probably the connotations to something which is socially deemed as ”dirty” (and the same can be said for some other words there as well).

Some? You’re nicer than I am, I think they’re all dirty.
The n-word on the other hand, has connotations to years of slavery, abuse, discrimination and other kinds of mistreatments of a specific group.

Don’t you see the difference between something associated by a perceived dirty thing and something associated with the abuse, discrimination and even murder of people (not unlikely, people related to the person taking offence)?

Yeah, I do, just as I see “nazi” being thrown around just as much if not more so which has a similar sort of connotation. Or even “communist”. Yet those words are spoken freely on television and in kid books. Granted, they can be said either as an insult in reference to things nazis did under Hitler or what communists did under Stalin, or just talking about the subject of nazis and communists in general from a historical perspective. But that’s my point. Context. It’s all about the context of the usage of the word. If black people can freely say nigger within the context of not referring to those hundreds of years of slavery, than so should whites, especially when we live in a day and age where we don’t have slavery. If it’s to be taken as an insult from whites regardless of context, then I just don’t see that as a path leading towards racial equality, I see it as a path leading towards racial divide that plays into the “white guilt” complex, something that we all need to seriously get over.

  • The difference here is that nazi or communist is words associated with the perpetrators, whereas the n-word is associated with the victims. Or do you claim that nazis have suffered the same unjust treatment as those called the n-word?

    I don’t think the problem with the n-word is that it awakens the thought of the horrible acts associated (as would be the case with the word nazi) but rather that it’s so associated with being aimed at a person in context to the unjust treatment of that person. The difference between whites throwing the word around and black people doing the same is the power-relations, for a black person it would be to reclaim the slur whereas the white person uses it from a more privileged position (that of being free from a history of racial slavery)

    Also, there’s still slavery today.

Me: The difference here is that nazi or communist is words associated with the perpetrators, whereas the n-word is associated with the victims. Or do you claim that nazis have suffered the same unjust treatment as those called the n-word?
Well, they sort of did post-war, but that’s beside the point. But going back to “nigger” being associated with victims, here’s another food for thought. Would it be wrong to call a black person a nigger if they themselves were the slave owners? Fun fact, white crackers bought black slaves from black slave owners in Africa. They didn’t ride out on horseback and round them up themselves, despite what that show Roots may indicate. They bought them from black men in power who also owned slaves.

Also, there’s still slavery today.
There is still slavery today, just not in America. But in Africa… among others.

I don’t think the problem with the n-word is that it awakens the thought of the horrible acts associated (as would be the case with the word nazi)
Fair enough.

but rather that it’s so associated with being aimed at a person in context to the unjust treatment of that person.
And that’s not going to change until it’s used in other contexts, which is done today, by both blacks and (to a lesser extent) whites.

The difference between whites throwing the word around and black people doing the same is the power-relations, for a black person it would be to reclaim the slur whereas the white person uses it from a more privileged position (that of being free from a history of racial slavery)

And here’s the core of many of the dissenting arguments against my view. The power-relations argument. Which I’m assuming you mean in the context of whites having more privileges than blacks, in the present tense. I’ll agree that this is the case in some cities in the country, something that should be rectified. But by and large, on a whole, on an average, I don’t believe that’s the case. I believe that generally, if a black person is in a low-power state, it’s for reasons that have nothing to do with racism, not in relation to racism from external forces outside of the family anyway. Some are in that state because of a reliance on welfare and whatnot. Families with mothers who fuck a lot and have a bunch of babies so they can get welfare.

Personally, where I come from, plenty of black folks have it just as good as me, if not better. They’ve had the same opportunities as me, and took advantage of them, and became more successful than me. So when I see stories of blacks who claim to be victims of racism which is why they are in a supposed bad state of affairs, I take it with a grain of salt. It could be true, and they could be in a low-power poor-financial state due to racism. But if it’s not, they’re niggers. The type of niggers Chris Rock harps on in one of his standup gigs (see link to my website above, there is a video on it that has this standup bit).

  • “Hell, it doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal when a black person calls a white guy a “cracker”. It’s ok for a nigger to call a white guy a cracker, but it’s not ok for a cracker to call a black guy a nigger. Just doesn’t seem fair to me”

    Frankly it’s a wash if you base your argument on anecdotal experiences. It’s less of a formal statement and dialogue but rather casual opinion and conversation. If you were merely speaking about your own experiences in your local circles that’d be fine, but from what I gather, you aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole, which I don’t think can work if you base and draw so much from anecdotal sources.

    “If black people can freely say nigger within the context of not referring to those hundreds of years of slavery, than so should whites”

    This is not equality. Black and white persons have completely different history and relations with the n-word, with black persons of course experiencing it extremely negatively. To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.

    “And keep in mind what I consider a nigger to be. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an ignorant dumb as fuck individual, most of the time associated with black people, but can also be associated with whites. Hell, I’d like to see someone call a Native American or a Korean a nigger.”

    The n-word is not some abstract subjective thing you can “consider”. It would be like saying gravity is something I “consider”. It has a solid and concrete definition, history and association. A simple Google search will bring you to define it as “a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person”. Calling someone of light skin the n-word simply does not make sense. Similar to how calling a non South Asian ethnic person a “gook” would make no sense. Honestly I wish I saw this sooner and saved my time. Forget about slavery and America, further discussion can’t be had if your perspective of the word is wrong to begin with.

Me:

Frankly it’s a wash if you base your argument on anecdotal experiences. It’s less of a formal statement and dialogue but rather casual opinion and conversation. If you were merely speaking about your own experiences in your local circles that’d be fine, but from what I gather, you aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole, which I don’t think can work if you base and draw so much from anecdotal sources.

I do aim to prescribe large-scale assessments on society and social issues as a whole. As for anecdotal experiences, fair enough, I’ll bring up something else. See below (response to your final paragraph).
This is not equality. Black and white persons have completely different history and relations with the n-word, with black persons of course experiencing it extremely negatively. To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.

That’s nowhere near the same fucking thing! The former (use of nigger) can be resolved strictly based on people’s attitudes and social upbringing with how they’re taught and raised to act towards that word. The latter (making the rich and the poor equals financially) is fucking socialism/communism, and there are plenty of arguments to be made against both. It’s not something resolved by a change of attitude, it’s resolved by giving/taking money from one or more individuals/organizations. This is an attitude issue, not an economic one. Unless you really want to expand the discussion that far, in which case we will be going on tangents.
The n-word is not some abstract subjective thing you can “consider”. It would be like saying gravity is something I “consider”. It has a solid and concrete definition, history and association. A simple Google search will bring you to define it as “a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person”. Calling someone of light skin the n-word simply does not make sense. Similar to how calling a non South Asian ethnic person a “gook” would make no sense. Honestly I wish I saw this sooner and saved my time. Forget about slavery and America, further discussion can’t be had if your perspective of the word is wrong to begin with.

First of all, the google dictionary isn’t always reliable given it’s political reasons for changing the definition of “fascism”.

Second, reliable or not, I pretty much used a similar explanation for the definition within the first paragraph of the review. So don’t treat me like a dumbass who isn’t aware of such things when I’m including the very definition in my own review.

Third and most important, quite frankly, it doesn’t matter how much you claim “nigger” isn’t an abstract subjective thing that can be considered. It doesn’t matter how solid and concrete the definition has been in the past (or in the present, officially-speaking). It doesn’t matter if calling someone who is light-skinned a nigger doesn’t make sense. Because the fact of the matter is black people (I’m not speaking for all of them here, no more than either of us is speaking for every white person) do call light-skinned people niggers. The fact of the matter is that definitions for words do change overtime for any number of reasons (like Google’s definition for fascism, which happened within the last 2 years, for starters). The fact of the matter is that the word “nigger” has been used subjectively by both white and black people (especially the latter) over the last 3 decades.

Whether you decide to continue the discussion or not, there are holes in your argument here.

  • “If it’s because I’m white, I’d argue that’s racist against whites. See the double standard there? If you’re argument is because all of the above is not acceptable, then I’d say that’s problem with society nowadays, too thin-skinned, which is why there’s so many whiners and not enough people willing to focus on more important issues.”

    here’s what you don’t understand:
    racism does not go both ways. racism is not just hating somebody because of their skin color, that’s part of it, but not the worst part. racism is a systemic inequality based on race, and elevates a majority race to a higher social-political level than a minority race. a black person cannot be racist because black people do not have the same social-political power as a white man. i know you don’t believe that, but research will prove me correct. i could explain why that is, but it’d take far too long and there’s more efficient ways to learn (which i’ll get to later). but i will summarize since i don’t want to make my argument seem hollow. this goes back to days of slavery, obviously. after the 13th amendment came about, blacks were still far weaker than whites. Jim Crow came about, and once that was “abolished,” came segregation. white flight (google it) was also a major aspect of racism that came about in the 1900s that will explain how black communities are often more impoverished than white communities.

    “I believe that generally, if a black person is in a low-power state, it’s for reasons that have nothing to do with racism, not in relation to racism from external forces outside of the family anyway. Some are in that state because of a reliance on welfare and whatnot. Families with mothers who fuck a lot and have a bunch of babies so they can get welfare.”

    again, this all goes back to how blacks were discriminated against in early America. “reasons that have nothing to do with racism.” like i said above, racism is not just some white man threatening to kill somebody because they don’t like their skin color. racism is an inequality in opportunities and social-political status. many blacks are on welfare because of the hand America dealt them. i’m going to give a very specific example to make my point. this is not how all blacks on welfare came to be, but certainly how some came to be, and maybe you’ll get a general idea of the bigger picture i’m trying to send.
    Jim Crow laws, in case you’re unaware, were laws that heavily penalized blacks for doing minor issues – such as loitering. for example. Jim Crow laws are still around, to some extent, though not legally. by this, i mean: many blacks have been arrested for smoking weed, not because it is highly illegal, but because it’s an easy method of getting them into jail, which is the exact same ideal of Jim Crow laws. so let’s say a black man, a father, is arrested and sentenced to 6 months in prison. that leaves his wife to be a single mother, which results in her resorting to welfare because she cannot alone support her family. when the father returns from prison, he is unable to get a job because of his jail record, which leaves him unemployed for a while, and the mother still on welfare. i could go more in depth on how that situation could spiral, but that’s the main point of it. this happens very often.

    the other commenters on here made good points that i was planning to make myself.

    above i mentioned there are more efficient ways to learn about what i was discussing, and by that, i urge you to watch two documentaries: 13th and I Am Not Your Negro. i haven’t gone through your films to see if you’ve already seen them, but if you surprisingly have, i’d recommend you watch them again, because you might’ve missed the point. in case you’re unaware, 13th discusses how the 13th amendment and Jim Crow laws are still affecting the lives of blacks today, and goes in depth on why blacks “commit the majority of crimes,” like you mentioned above. I Am Not Your Negro talks about the history of blacks in America and how racism of the early 1900s affects our society today.

     

  • you also keep talking about being “tough skinned.” being “tough skinned” is what led us to have this bully as a president. if being tough skinned means accepting discrimination or bullying, count me the fuck out. blacks have gone over 200 years discriminated against and targeted, lived through slavery and segregation, and your answer to that is to grow tougher skin? hell no. how about the discrimination and hate ends, instead?

Me:

racism does not go both ways.

Oh I can’t wait to see where you’re going with this.
racism is a systemic inequality based on race, and elevates a majority race to a higher social-political level than a minority race. a black person cannot be racist because black people do not have the same social-political power as a white man. i know you don’t believe that, but research will prove me correct. i could explain why that is, but it’d take far too long and there’s more efficient ways to learn (which i’ll get to later). but i will summarize since i don’t want to make my argument seem hollow. this goes back to days of slavery, obviously. after the 13th amendment came about, blacks were still far weaker than whites. Jim Crow came about, and once that was “abolished,” came segregation. white flight (google it) was also a major aspect of racism that came about in the 1900s that will explain how black communities are often more impoverished than white communities.

Everyone knows that. So I’ll answer with this common saying, “What the fuck have you done for me lately?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the fuck have we (white people) been doing to black people lately that would justify this dumb fucking white guilt complex? Better yet, what the fuck have black people done lately? Sure there’ been great figures like MLK Jr. and Malcolm X, but that’s well in the past by now. All I’ve seen lately is bitching and moaning and BlackLivesMatter encouraging violence against whites and police. Quite frankly, it almost seems reasonable to bring back racism against black people. Key word being “almost”. I’ve seen a whole lot of sympathy for black people’s supposed plight, not much for the plight of others. You want to talk about age-old victims of racism, why not bring up the Koreans who had their businesses looted and destroyed during the 1992 LA riots? Why not bring up the Chinese who got raped in Nanking by the Japanese? Why not bring up white-Euro slavery in the Middle East?

And I’ll continue with another common saying, “Get over it.”

It’s not healthy to hold old grudges, especially when the current generation not only had nothing to do with it, but would definitely not repeat the sins of their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, etc. So get over the fact that things were bad in the past, realize you’re living in a new time, the present, the golden years, and get the fuck over it. Don’t waste your life searching for those wasted years.

many blacks are on welfare because of the hand America dealt them. i’m going to give a very specific example to make my point. this is not how all blacks on welfare came to be, but certainly how some came to be, and maybe you’ll get a general idea of the bigger picture i’m trying to send.
Jim Crow laws, in case you’re unaware, were laws that heavily penalized blacks for doing minor issues – such as loitering. for example. Jim Crow laws are still around, to some extent, though not legally. by this, i mean: many blacks have been arrested for smoking weed, not because it is highly illegal, but because it’s an easy method of getting them into jail, which is the exact same ideal of Jim Crow laws. so let’s say a black man, a father, is arrested and sentenced to 6 months in prison. that leaves his wife to be a single mother, which results in her resorting to welfare because she cannot alone support her family. when the father returns from prison, he is unable to get a job because of his jail record, which leaves him unemployed for a while, and the mother still on welfare. i could go more in depth on how that situation could spiral, but that’s the main point of it. this happens very often.

Very often. Where? Which state? Which city? Is it widespread statistically? I can just as easily give a counter-example to make an opposing point. Such as the case of white firefighters in New Haven being racially discriminated against. I can do this all day. Try me. You wanna really make a point on all this? Show statistically that these examples of yours are not just small unfortunate instances in small unfortunate towns. I can just as easily make the point that this racial discrimination happens quite often against white people.
the other commenters on here made good points that i was planning to make myself.

And they’ve been addressed.
above i mentioned there are more efficient ways to learn about what i was discussing, and by that, i urge you to watch two documentaries: 13th and I Am Not Your Negro. i haven’t gone through your films to see if you’ve already seen them, but if you surprisingly have, i’d recommend you watch them again, because you might’ve missed the point. in case you’re unaware, 13th discusses how the 13th amendment and Jim Crow laws are still affecting the lives of blacks today, and goes in depth on why blacks “commit the majority of crimes,” like you mentioned above. I Am Not Your Negro talks about the history of blacks in America and how racism of the early 1900s affects our society today.

Well now you have my interest. I’ll see what I can do about watching those. That being said, you should already be aware that I have seen at least 1 film on this sort of subject, Ferguson. I’ve linked to it on your entry for Do the Right Thing. The other I have seen in relation to this subject is Burn Motherfucker, Burn!
you also keep talking about being “tough skinned.” being “tough skinned” is what led us to have this bully as a president. if being tough skinned means accepting discrimination or bullying, count me the fuck out. blacks have gone over 200 years discriminated against and targeted, lived through slavery and segregation, and your answer to that is to grow tougher skin? hell no. how about the discrimination and hate ends, instead?

Do you really want to go there? Do you really want to start bringing the whole anti-Trump bully-racist-sexist-Russian influenced-hack subject and how it relates to the supposed current state of racism? You do not want to go down that road with me buddy boy. You will find a new meaning of pain and humiliation in getting your ass handed to you on a silver platter. I would say bring it on, but that would go off on a big tangent, of which you’ll likely throw a bitch-fit and claim spam and try to get this entire entry taken down like the last cocksucker did with my The Red Pill review. Don’t even think about it. I’m more than prepared for that outcome.

Do us both a favor and keep this discussion away from Trump-bashing. Don’t let your liberal brainwashed colors shine that brightly.

Now, with that out of the way, tough skinned. I don’t think you quite understand what that means and what the benefits are. That doesn’t mean accepting discrimination and bullying, that means shrugging off petty insults, and learning not to take minor things too seriously (although this might not carry much weight from a film critic who bitches about minor petty stuff in films all the time). You know, the kind you hear all the time from elementary school all the way to college. If you want to fight against discrimination and bullying, it’s not tough skin you need. It’s wisdom and muscle.

And lastly, an end to discrimination and hate. At least we can agree on that. We disagree on how to get there. I’ve offered a step towards that solution, making this review make the point of it. And I’m openly challenging anyone who disagrees with me to offer a better way. Why should the word “nigger” be banned from the mouths of the white devil, as opposed to being spoken freely and in lighthearted fun among many who can handle it much as how they can handle any other curse word? All I’m hearing in response currently is, “Oh, the horrid dreaded past.” Fuck the horrid dreaded past. The horrid dreaded past has everything bad in it. The horrid dreaded past has people getting eaten in half by sharks at the beach, yet people still go swimming and making Jaws jokes. The horrid dreaded past has women getting raped by men (or by other women, you don’t hear much about that do you?), much less men getting raped by other men (or by other women, don’t hear much about that either?), yet both sexes have ways of coping and moving on.

I’ve known a couple girls who were victims of rape, who entered into an argument two guys were having about how rape shouldn’t be joked about, especially in front of rape victims, because they are emotionally scarred and can’t take it. One of those girls, came into the conversation at said something along the lines of, “I wouldn’t want to stop people from joking about rape. In fact, I can listen to and laugh at rape jokes all the time. Because it helps me, it stops me from being a victim. It proves that I didn’t let him defeat me. To me it shows that he did not destroy me. That I am alive and still going, and still going strong.”

That, my friend, is tough skin. Not staying as the victim the rest of your life. Licking your wounds, growing stronger, and moving on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a rape victim can get over a horrible thing of the past, and have a relationship with and get married to a male, then why the fuck can’t black people get over this? Why is it that you and others believe this white guilt of the past thing should carry so much weight?




So I believe it’s worth mentioning at this point that jeremyfizzy wrote a review soon after seeing mine and making his first comment on it.

jeremyfizzy Review by jeremyfizzy

What begins as a relatively lighthearted yet authentic slice of life of an African-American in 20th century Brooklyn, ends in a gut-punching reflection of our society. Because, as well all know (or should know), the life of an African-American in America is not at all lighthearted.
The film bursts with energy that brings to mind Scorsese’s Mean Streets and utilizes it to drive forward a hard-hitting look at the deeply ingrained culture clash of urban America. Inevitably provocative and frustrating to the intolerant and close-minded while simultaneously educating and empowering to the open-minded and oppressed.
The most amazing aspect of this film is not what it says, but instead what it evokes its audience to say.

To which I responded and get in this brief exchange:

Me:

Because, as well all know (or should know), the life of an African-American in America is not at all lighthearted.

Ah, I see what the deal is now. Perhaps this will give a little more insight into my line of thinking:
letterboxd.com/gex/film/ferguson-a-report-from-occupied-territory/

 

  • i don’t think any BLM argument is valid when discussing this movie. the other way around, yes, but not here, since this movie came out almost 30 years ago, whereas BLM is recent. the hardships of blacks in America is systemic and goes further than the aspects you covered in that review.

Me:

Of course the the BLM argument isn’t valid when discussing this movie, that’s not the point I was making with that link. The point I was making is that I’m not an ignorant fucking racist. I’d expect you to treat me accordingly if you choose to comment on my Do the Right Thing movie post again.

  • you cancelled out the chance of me thinking you weren’t ignorant or racist when you threw around the n word in hopes of desensitizing it.

Me:

Then I guess you can blame a man for trying.




9:45pm, 7-10-2017

  • Arg. #2: It was merely an analogy. Maybe not the best one, I concede, but nonetheless the rest of my statement remains without response.

    Arg. #3: Again pointing out small things. I used Google merely to demonstrate the widespread and simple definition of the n-word. You cannot seriously doubt that Google’s definition is how most people would define the n-word. At the very least, you cannot also seriously doubt that most people would choose Google’s definition over yours (“ignorant dumb as fuck individual”).

    “Because the fact of the matter is black people do call light-skinned people niggers.” – This seems to be the thesis of this paragraph yet again I can’t do anything about / work with it since again it’s based on anecdotal experience. I have never heard black persons call white persons the n-word, nor have I heard of such an instance occurring in my area/circles. It’s probably because, again, it doesn’t make any sense. So on that front, I’ll withdraw as neutral.

    “The fact of the matter is that definitions for words do change overtime for any number of reasons” … “The fact of the matter is that the word “nigger” has been used subjectively by both white and black people (especially the latter) over the last 3 decades.”

    Okay I think I see the disconnect here, you’re mixing up the words and meanings of “definition”, “connotation”, and “subjective”. There is only one definition of the n-word as I previously stated and it is not subjective. Further, I highly doubt that this definition has changed significantly since its inception/popularization hundreds (?) of years ago (feel free to correct me on that). What has and continues to change about the term though, as you (rightfully) said, is its CONNOTATIONS – “an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning”. Again, if we can’t agree on the definition and connotations of the n-word (and the difference between the two), further discussion can’t be had.

    (P.S. I don’t mean to imply you’re a “dumbass” with my writing, as you probably know digital communication can be misleading)

Me:

@G
Arg. #2: It was merely an analogy. Maybe not the best one, I concede, but nonetheless the rest of my statement remains without response.

What, this part that was based on some ideas of your analogy?:

“To suggest that both sides should just drop it/forget about the ideas and impact behind the word and move forward by both using it similarly freely is not fair and not equal. It would be like if a person who paid hundreds of dollars and a person who owed hundreds of dollars were both told that their financial statuses have been erased/ignored and they can now share some kind of service/device dually together.”

Didn’t consider the passive-aggressive nature of my response, such as when I said, “can be resolved strictly based on people’s attitudes and social upbringing with how they’re taught and raised to act towards that word.”? The idea that it’s all about an individual’s attitude? It applies there. To make the point blunt, I’ve seen a white guy and a black guy together, both saying to each other, “My nigga!” and laughing with each others. Because their attitude is that this dreaded n-word isn’t to be taken seriously. And they’re perfectly fine with it. Wanna know what that demonstrates? Peace! Equality! Patty problem solved!
Arg. #3: Again pointing out small things. I used Google merely to demonstrate the widespread and simple definition of the n-word. You cannot seriously doubt that Google’s definition is how most people would define the n-word. At the very least, you cannot also seriously doubt that most people would choose Google’s definition over yours (“ignorant dumb as fuck individual”).

I don’t know about that. Chris Rock tends to think otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This seems to be the thesis of this paragraph yet again I can’t do anything about / work with it since again it’s based on anecdotal experience. I have never heard black persons call white persons the n-word, nor have I heard of such an instance occurring in my area/circles. It’s probably because, again, it doesn’t make any sense. So on that front, I’ll withdraw as neutral.
One of these days you’re going to see an old 80s or 90s film which displays that scenario.
Okay I think I see the disconnect here, you’re mixing up the words and meanings of “definition”, “connotation”, and “subjective”. There is only one definition of the n-word as I previously stated and it is not subjective.
Yeah, like how alcohol was defined as an illegal substance. Like how marijuana is an illegal drug worse than alcohol. Like how gay meant happy. Definitions change. Things change. Why not encourage them to change for the better?

 

“A word, any word, is not going to make or break a racist. Context is everything.”Deistman
Further, I highly doubt that this definition has changed significantly since its inception/popularization hundreds (?) of years ago (feel free to correct me on that).

Hundreds? Oh goodie, I’ve got something to work with.
A neutral noun in the 17th century, nigger had, by 1830, become an “influential” insult.

Quote from the book:
“I found myself sharing a hotel room with a white youngster from Mobile, Alabama. Late one evening, right as we were about to shut off the lights and go to sleep, this guy decided to tell me a final joke, one in which a reference to a ‘nigger’ constituted the punch line. As soon as that line escaped his lips, his eyes bulged while the rest of his face froze. He knew immediately that he had made himself vulnerable to a judgement that he deeply feared. Why had he done so? I suspect that he had become so comfortable with me that he ceased to see me in terms of race. Or perhaps he had merely granted me the status of an honorary white. Either way, the reference to ‘nigger’ seems to have suddenly made him aware anew of my blackness and thus the need to treat me differently than other acquaintances. I said nothing during the awkward silence that enveloped the room as his voice trailed away from the failed joke.
He apologized.
I do not recall whether or not I actually felt offended, but I do remember that from that moment on, the ease that had marked our budding relationship vanished.”

There you go.

Ah, gotcha! You didn’t think I was going to make it that easy for ya didja? Oh no, I’ve got a good one:

” On this date in 1997, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)called for a formal dictionary revision of the word “nigger.”

The NAACP publicly requested Merriam-Webster to revise its dictionary definition of the word. The Merriam-Webster dictionary’s 9th and 10th editions (as well as online) define the word as “a black person… usually taken to be offensive.” NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said that definition “doesn’t say, Once used to describe a black person, a slur.’ It says, A black person.”

He said, “The NAACP finds it objectionable that the Merriam-Webster would use black people as a definition for a racist term.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary now defines “nigger” this way, in part, as “a black person, usually offensive. . . . a member of any dark-skinned race; a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons. It now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English.” “Associated Press, October 17, 1997.

Of course it’s not a “significant” change, but still.
What has and continues to change about the term though, as you (rightfully) said, is its CONNOTATIONS – “an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning”. Again, if we can’t agree on the definition and connotations of the n-word (and the difference between the two), further discussion can’t be had.

Oh I know. I just wanted a good excuse to throw the Associated Press link at ya. Either way, definition, connotation, it still shouldn’t be taken so seriously, and I hope society eventually evolves into that and becomes all the better for it.
(P.S. I don’t mean to imply you’re a “dumbass” with my writing, as you probably know digital communication can be misleading)

You son of a bitch. How dare you not insult me!




July 11, 2017, 10:17am

The day will not come, in my lifetime at least, that the n-word will be taken “not seriously” amongst the general population. And in my opinion that only makes sense due to all of its entails. So do I agree on all of your thoughts about changing attitudes, upbringings, etc.? Of course, what decent and sensible person wouldn’t. But in reality it’s utopian fantasy, I can’t imagine how to even attempt to bring about such reform in something with so much baggage on a societal level (and probably beyond considering globalization and American dominance in popular media). But hey, good on you, keep right on, and go ahead in trying to do. Fight the good fight, ain’t that right?

(P.S. I’m probably done discussing here but good talk, props for remaining civil)

Me:

@G
Do the Right Thing.

As for how to go about doing it, you’re not going to like my idea, so I won’t say it, because that would take us on a big tangent you probably couldn’t resist getting involved in, unless the thought of it ends up angering you so much that you’ve had it up to here with me and are done.

Nice try with the bait. Too bad for you I never fall hook, line, & sinker. If your idea was any good you would have just said it. 😉

Me:

@G
Nice try with the bait. Too bad for you I never fall hook, line, & sinker. If your idea was any good you would have just said it. 😉

Ok, you asked for it. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The way to forge a path towards not taking the word “nigger” so seriously can be done by not overcompensating the preach-factor in regards to its hurtful insulting nature. To let things play out naturally. In order to do that, there needs to be some reform in an important area of many people’s lives. The mainstream media, which includes the news, tv shows, and movies.

Enough of the biased news stories and how the cover murder and crime at a slanted angle which involves racism in the sense of pandering to and promoting white guilt. Enough with putting down the conservative angle (especially by you Disney ABC). Enough with the false implied statistics. Too many media outlets push forth this idea, which wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t skew the reality of events to the extent that they do.

The other area that needs reform is the schools, which should be no secret now that many of them are liberally run and tend to crack down (unofficially) on conservative views, even though all views should have a fair say.

Those two main areas are responsible for causing racial divide and thus enforcing the taboo-stance of the word “nigger”. One could argue its the parents passing down such teachings to the children, but the youth are more influenced by the culture rather than by the parents. The parents are a big influence, but not the only influence. And the odds of changing the minds of the adults are less great than changing the minds of a youth who is soaking in all information freely, assuming he/she wasn’t taught to by into biases too early on.

Anyway, I think you know now why I didn’t say it. It’s a conversation that belongs in a different thread, in a different film entry.

Granted, the paragraph regarding the slavery today is more of a side-thing and not really relevant for the main-argument, so I don’t think it’s necessary to discuss it.

There’s obviously a lot of words with multiple definitions, but this one – unlike many others – have one very clearly racist tone and reference which makes it offensive in some regards. So when saying that everybody should claim it, it could be that people keep claiming it as a racist remark and thus continues to hammer in the oppressive message of the word. Because let’s be clear here, there’s obviously a lot of other words without the same connotations that could be used – so there’s really not a reason for you or me to reclaim the n-word when we could just as well use a word without any such connotations.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to with ”both ways” here? Granted, in the context of intersectionality, obviously oppression could go in several ways but that’s not exactly what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about words rooted in centuries of racial discrimination, institutionalized racism and rooting back to slavery. If that’s something you’d say goes both ways in terms of the relationship being reversed – I’m very interested in what kinds of systematic racism against white people you see in the areas we’re discussing or how the historically rooted racial discrimination against white people looks like.

Me:

@Xplodera
There’s obviously a lot of words with multiple definitions, but this one – unlike many others – have one very clearly racist tone and reference which makes it offensive in some regards.

Now that’s not true. Gook is racist too. Haven’t ever seen it used in a positive way like nigger. Never seen anyone be called a cool gook, although I think that would be kinda awesome. Plenty of other words have one clearly racist tone that are more racist than nigger simply because, unlike nigger, they’ve never been used in a positive way. Sometimes you’ll hear “My nigga!”, but you never hear, “My gook!”.

So when saying that everybody should claim it, it could be that people keep claiming it as a racist remark and thus continues to hammer in the oppressive message of the word.

Or, more accurately, they are told to keep believing it should only be claimed as a racist remark and should only be viewed as oppressive and nothing else.

Because let’s be clear here, there’s obviously a lot of other words without the same connotations that could be used

Doesn’t that contradict your first sentence?

– so there’s really not a reason for you or me to reclaim the n-word when we could just as well use a word without any such connotations.

Like “nerd”? Like “queer”? Both used for similar oppressive contexts in the past, but now those who were oppressed by it now own it, and not only own it, think it’s cool.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Gotta learn to not get hurt by the word, especially if it’s not intended to hurt in the context it is used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s punishing people for saying something with the intent to harm, in which case any word they say can be considered oppressive because it’s meant to be. But punishing those who say a word without intent to harm, treating it out of context, that’s politically correct bullshit. It’s just a way of promoting fascism under the guise of promoting tolerance and manners.

 




 

July 12, 2017

 

  • What the fuck have we (white people) been doing to black people lately that would justify this dumb fucking white guilt complex?

    do you have a Twitter account? situations that would answer this question are trending literally almost every day, unless you choose to ignore them. racial profiling is still very common today. just about two weeks ago, a group of black young adults were handcuffed for selling water publicly (www.vibe.com/2017/06/undercover-cops-handcuffed-black-teens-for-selling-water-on-national-mall/ ). if you think that happened for any other reason than the fact that they’re black, then you must be trying to be ignorant. this happens very often.
    how about the incessant cops killing unarmed, innocent blacks? i won’t even give you a source for this because it happens too often for me to need to prove my point. you know that. there was a massive surge in these murders that occurred this time last year that you can’t forget. (but i will link this source, which is the most recent of this situation i’ve heard of, and it’s even more mind-boggling than the average cop-killing: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636036/Off-duty-black-St-Louis-cop-mistakenly-shot-white-cop.html ) what’s more significant is the fact these cops are rarely ever charged for their acts. Eric Garner’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. Philandro Castile’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. do i need to go on? it’s nepotism fueled by whites. this is why we’re upset that there is nearly no people of color in the GOP. i say “nearly,” because i didn’t fact check, so i could be wrong, but the only black that i know of in the GOP is Ben Carson, but he’s such an idiot it almost doesn’t even matter.
    how about the jail sentences for blacks being so much longer than those of whites, for the same crime (www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html )?

    it’s not necessarily what you, personally have or haven’t done, it’s what the whites in power have or haven’t done. that’s what the protests are for.

     

 

Me:

@jeremyfizzy
Oh I’ve been waiting for a response like this. Welcome back to the discussion. I thought you were out.

do you have a Twitter account? situations that would answer this question are trending literally almost every day, unless you choose to ignore them.

I have a twitter account, but I don’t use it regularly. And I find most trends to be stupid so I do usually just ignore them, whether they’re of a racist subject or something else. But twitter isn’t the only source for stuff like this.
racial profiling is still very common today. just about two weeks ago, a group of black young adults were handcuffed for selling water publicly (www.vibe.com/2017/06/undercover-cops-handcuffed-black-teens-for-selling-water-on-national-mall/ ). if you think that happened for any other reason than the fact that they’re black, then you must be trying to be ignorant. this happens very often.

I agree that this was petty and likely driven by racism (or at the very least racial profiling). That this was wrong. As for happens very often, what is “often” in this sense? How low would it have to be to not be considered to be happening often anymore? 0% isn’t realistic, because no race gets that sort of treatment.
how about the incessant cops killing unarmed, innocent blacks? i won’t even give you a source for this because it happens too often for me to need to prove my point. you know that.

First of all, how do you know they’re innocent? Second of all, how about the incessant cops killing unarmed (maybe innocent) whites?

 

 

 

 

 

If cops killing blacks happens often, then that’s also the case for whites. The difference is that the liberal news media has an agenda they like to push, and only highlight specific stories to fit their narrative. Stories of blacks getting killed by police tends to be the highlight on the news far more often than stories of whites getting killed by police, even though both happen, and probably more-so to the whites.
there was a massive surge in these murders that occurred this time last year that you can’t forget.

Okay, I’m assuming you’re talking about all those deaths that lead to the rise of #blacklivesmatter, and calling out cops for their racist discrimination and hate-crimes justified by wearing a badge, blah blah blah. Here’s the thing, most of that turned out to be bullshit, and #blacklivesmatter is built on lies.

 

 

 

See what I mean about twitter trends being stupid?
(but i will link this source, which is the most recent of this situation i’ve heard of, and it’s even more mind-boggling than the average cop-killing: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4636036/Off-duty-black-St-Louis-cop-mistakenlyshot-white-cop.html )

That white cop is a dumb fuck.
what’s more significant is the fact these cops are rarely ever charged for their acts. Eric Garner’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. Philandro Castile’s murderer is free, because he is a cop. do i need to go on?

I agree, cops are rarely charged for their crimes. That is a problem. But…
it’s nepotism fueled by whites.

Bullshit. This isn’t some racist problem, it’s a power problem, it’s a police problem, it’s a justice problem. Sometimes it’s racially motivated, but you’re thinking too small if you think that’s the big issue when it comes to the police force. Look at Serpico, Look at The Glass Shield. Or hell, even that tv show The Wire. A police force can be just as bad as the mob, a corrupt family who mainly looks out for each other, and punishes “traitors” severely. Granted, not all of them are that bad (it depends on how large they are and what city/country they are in), but for those who are, racism tends to be a minor issue, at best, in most circumstances. They protect themselves and each other, and know judges who will keep it that way. It’s difficult to fight against a cop (legally speaking, lawsuits and such), whether you’re black or white.
this is why we’re upset that there is nearly no people of color in the GOP. i say “nearly,” because i didn’t fact check, so i could be wrong, but the only black that i know of in the GOP is Ben Carson, but he’s such an idiot it almost doesn’t even matter.

Can’t we agree that, black or white, just about all politicians suck? I’d rather not go too far into that, but here’s another question. What percentage of blacks make up the U.S. population? How many people on average decide they want a political career as opposed to ANY other kind of career?
how about the jail sentences for blacks being so much longer than those of whites, for the same crime (www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/unequal-sentences-for-blacks-and-whites.html )?

Ah yeah, that. The article isn’t exactly detailed enough, such as mentioning whether or not these are repeated offenders, which would give a reasonable explanation as to why the sentencings are longer, which would also make sense considering how often blacks get arrested for crimes (see link I made above for more on that). And I do still need to watch 13th. But assuming that’s true, that a black man does commit the exact same crime as a white man (ignoring any pretense of repeated offender), there’s another question worth asking. Why do blacks statistically cause more crime than whites (again, link to pragerU vid above)?
it’s not necessarily what you, personally have or haven’t done, it’s what the whites in power have or haven’t done. that’s what the protests are for.

Or they’re just bitching and moaning because they bought into lies.

Just to have a second PragerU vid for support:

 

 

 

One second to the last thing:

 

 

 

 

 

And for the fuck of it, since you brought it up earlier, something related to a particular subject:

Be wary of what you hear about racism. It’s not always true.

 

Do the Right Thing review and discussion on racism

Rated: 3/5

So “nigger” is an offensive word right? At least when white people use it? But why is that exactly? From what I’ve been taught, it has to do with the past, during the 1800s to the late 1900s (depending on which area of America you are at). A term used by white men towards black slaves. A term intended to be insulting and contemptuous. A term that treats blacks as those of a lower class. But nowadays the definition/usage tends to vary. Blacks use it towards each other in a way that isn’t putting someone down so much as it is the cool thing to say. Sort of like how DC Talk took the term “Jesus Freak” and made it cool. A term of endearment, another word for “friend”. Except that it’s a cool word that only black people can use, otherwise it’s blasphemous, making the non-black who uses the word susceptible to being beaten, potentially to death. Never mind that they use the term towards white people as well. A bit of a double standard, though I can see their point. There is much the white man should feel guilty about when it comes to events of the past previous generations have carried out. Used between black people, it’s in a controlled environment, within their own context. Outside of that context, “nigger” takes on a different form, a different life, a different meaning.

Continue reading

Get Out review

Rated: 3/5

I heard good things about this, being a horror movie and all. And I tend to be very skeptical of horror films, because most of them suck. As it turns out, this did nothing to surprise me in that regard, because I don’t think of this as a horror film. It’s a suspense/thriller, plain and simple. And it’s a solid one.

Continue reading