Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

AmPaul

Members
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About AmPaul

  • Rank
    Wolfpup
  • Birthday August 24
  1. It's a long video, but you could start it from pretty much any point and get the gist of it. British talk show has a guest on, a mother, who won't let her kids play with other kids based on their names. (No "Tylers" or "Brandons".) Super classist, super snooty and snobbish. Also, if you go later in the video, she talks about how she won't allow "geographic locations, like Brooklyn or London..." and then it's revealed that one of her daughter's names is INDIA.
  2. OH my have I embarrassed myself?
  3. Pay attention, Andrew Ti.
  4. How so? I can see how that might be annoying, but racist is a stretch.
  5. Ok, I'll answer your question. No, I'm not offended by that specific stereotype. But there are others that do harm. Like assuming that being from the south means your racist, or assuming that only white people can be racist. My point, though, is that prejudice based on race should not be tolerated, no matter what race is on what end. That doesn't sound like a radical concept to me.
  6. Nor did anyone elect Andrew Ti, Shariq, or Kevin the spokesperson of POC, yet here we are having this conversation.
  7. So you are saying that it's OK to hurt white people because it doesn't hurt as much as hurting another group, right? That's exactly what I mean. Not as bad does not automatically make it OK. Punching someone in the gut is not as bad as punching them in the groin, but no one ever gets out of an assault charge by pleading that "well, at least I didn't punch them in the groin, your honor."
  8. Shariq, that's a fine essay, but it doesn't really counter my point. You are agreeing with me that calling someone a cracker is not as bad as calling someone the n-word, but my argument was that, despite it being not as severe, it's still not an OK thing to do. And I was just using slurs as examples. Whether it be against POC or white people, whether you refuse to call it racism, instead labeling it something like simply "prejudice" or whatever you like, the name of it doesn't matter. It's still unacceptable. I've heard Andrew many times on this podcast make fun of and stereotype ugh....white people... and justify it with this weak logic, that "not as bad"="acceptable". (Addition point here. Had to go to work) A show such as this, and its forums, should be the last place where any sort of racial prejudice is tolerated.
  9. Well first off, racism is not generally inferred to mean that. That's probably the definition Kevin Irmiter is used to hearing, but if you ask almost anyone not running a social justice blog, and they'll give you something closer to the more widely used definition: prejudice against someone based on their race. Ignoring that, though, I'll use your definition for my next point: Just because it doesn't fit the specific definition of racism, it doesn't make it acceptable. It's a logical jump that I see happening a lot in the social-justice circles. Sure, it may not cause as much harm to a white person when you call them a cracker than when you call a black person the n-word, just like punching someone in the face doesn't hurt as bad as kicking them in the nuts, but "not as bad in comparison" does not equal "fine".
×