action52

I don't mind the ending that much, but then again I rarely listen to it. You see, my mp3 player has this very high tech function that allows me to instantly make it stop playing, or skip to another track, even when I'm in the middle of a podcast. Perhaps you should consider investing in a more advanced audio device that has this function.

Of course not, and I don't think that's the point I was making. It just seems to me that the main reason white people go on these "sex tours" is that they can get an experience relatively cheaply and easily. If a similar experience were available at similar prices in white countries I think it would be even more popular. Perhaps I am being naive? But in any case, I don't see this as a thing where you can just assume the guys are being racist, whereas you can most definitely assume they have no qualms about dehumanizing women into objects for their personal pleasure. Also, there is the fact that while I think seeing Asian women as more exotic and sexy is most definitely racist, I wouldn't put it on the same level as hood-wearing Klan members. But "sex tourism" is some of the worst misogyny out there in my opinion. so I just see the misogyny as way worse than the racism in this case.

I think we can all agree that Stargoyle had the best Bruce Willis impression.

Forgive me for bringing this back on topic, but couldn't it also be considered racist against Asians to assume that just because someone is Asian, they will prefer to use chopsticks? Just putting it out there.

Fair enough, but the price to get comparable levels of luxury would be much higher in Europe. It's more than just sex, it's the chance to feel like a fancy big roller with girls hanging off of you, who can fuck any hot girl he wants to. And transsexuals. Lots and lots of transsexuals. You want to bang a hot ladyboy, Bangkok gives you more options to choose from than anywhere else in the world. It's a statistical fact.

There are few things more wonderful than when June says something bat-shit insane... and then is proven RIGHT.

Agree with James Woods Jr.! I generally find Horatio to be better with short one-off characters (great on I4H) but this is the first extended character he's done on CBB that I really liked. Lots of great one-liners as usual but this time the character seemed more focused. Instead of just a bunch of random stuff it really felt like we were peeling back the layers of this insane character.

I don't even see how it's racist, really. I think people usually go because the sex (and drugs) are readily available, and cheap by the standards of their own country. I think it's more that than any kind of fetishization of Thailand, or the Philippines, or wherever. So it may be disgusting, but not for racist reasons. If anything the sex tourists might be misogynists, but the racism strikes me as a very peripheral issue at most. I think most of the people would go to white countries for sex tourism if they could do so easily, legally, and cheaply.

I love her other work too, but I don't think I'll ever be able to see Kristen Schaal's name without thinking "Kristen Schaal is a horse!" Looking forward to this episode.

No, not really. I don't think you should stereotype or be bigoted about anyone. If you are bigoted about white people that is less harmful and probably less of a big deal to me, but I still think it's bad. You are free to make any remarks you please, but be ready for the consequences if people are offended. And I guess if it's about white people I'm more likely to say "relax, it's nothing to get offended about" if, for example, the person if making a joke. If we're going to make analogies, then it's like someone pretending they're going to punch other people, as a joke to make them flinch, as opposed to someone who takes a knife or gun and acts like they're going to attack with it to make people flinch. The first one is no big deal, and I would think people were overly sensitive if they got really mad over it. But the second case is dangerous to the point that you shouldn't even pretend to be racist. So if you make jokes about white people like calling them "cracker" or "honkey," as long as it doesn't seem to be coming from a place of real hatred or bigotry then I think it's fine. But you shouldn't go around using the n word, even as a joke. And even stuff where you pretend to be a bigot is dangerous territory that I would just steer clear of, even if it doesn't make you overtly racist.

The definition is widespread enough among people who study and/or talk about racism that Andrew can't just ignore it. This does put Andrew in a difficult position, though, since he knows that a big chunk of the people listening are going to be people who know and use the stricter definition. But at the same time it's widely available enough that many people will have the colloquial definition. I do think that even if they don't use different words for the two, most people know that there is a difference between simple prejudice and prejuduice that is backed by an institution and history of systematic oppression. I don't think Andrew is really stereotyping or ragging on white people, though. Most of the time when he is ragging on white people I think it's pretty obvious that he's joking. And when he does make serious generalizations, they have always been generalizations and not broad stereotypes. For example when he says the South is more racist than the North, he's not saying that he thinks being from the south automatically makes you racist, or that the North is not racist as well. I think the difference is that with white people, it's OK to joke around with stuff like that. Like, it's OK to make broad, sweeping generalizations about white people, as a joke, or to say stuff like "cracker" to mess with them a little bit. Because even if what you say is misinterpreted or used in a different way, the actual harm they can do is extremely limited. Whereas saying stuff about a minority group can be extremely hurtful, and you might find that you are unintentionally aligning yourself with some very bad people.

This isn't something that only white teachers do, either. Plenty of nonwhite teachers have the same biases. It benefits whites in the end, of course, but since it is so subtle that most people don't even realize their biases are race-based, plenty of people internalize them even when it is to their own detriment. And just to head off the people who say OH LOOK BLACK PEOPLE DO IT TOO THAT MEANS IT'S EVERYBODY'S FAULT NOT JUST WHITE PEOPLE, no it isn't. If a car gets in an accident, you don't say the people riding in the passenger seats are equally responsible, do you? No, you blame the driver, just like we should blame the people running the country for its problems. "Racism" generally implies that it is a part of systematic oppression in which the dominant race is keeping itself stronger than the other races. Since white people dominate the USA, it is therefore impossible for racism (in this sense) against white people to exist in the USA, or any other country run by white people. Bigotry and prejudice against white people can and does exist, of course, but it doesn't do as much harm or injustice as true racism.

I think another very plausible explanation is the self-fulfilling prophecy. Educators expect bad behavior out of black students, so they act in a way that promotes bad behavior. This can include giving disproportionately harsh punishments and causing resentment, as well as skewing the data in that direction. It also can include being "easier on" black students. Like, instead of correcting them and trying to teach them the proper way to behave, the teacher might just ignore problems from black students because they don't think disciplining them will do anything. It's more subtle than you may think. I'm sure none of the people doing this think that they're ebing racist. And many of them might not even consciously be thinking of black students as worse than white students. But somewhere in their brain, they are biased to expect bad from behavior from black students more than white students. So when a black kid acts out they're more likely to see it as a sign that this is a bad kid overall. I don't like the "cultural differences" explanation very much. I maen OK up to a point it might explain why they enter a classroom less inclined to sit still and listen, but I think it can lead to the attitude of overlooking problems and not trying to teach proper behavior that I mentioned earlier. Black children are just as capable of sitting still and listening as any other race, and if there is a problem you can usually tell by looking at other factors about the individual that are independent of race.

I was on board with Sark's disgusting descriptions but I think he took it too far. For god's sake, gross-out comedy can be funny up to a point but when you give us an image that's TOO disgusting it gets hard to listen. I mean, Cheez-Wiz? Yuck. Also I want to point out that I love Stargoyle. Have I mentioned that before?

My post was implying that by using names like "Chimichanga" and "Gordito" would probably mean that they were naming them after their favorite Taco Bell items. Although maybe my references are outdated, because I haven't been in a Taco Bell in over 10 years. I will give you guys the benefit of the doubt and assume my cultural references are too out of date for the young users to pick up on them, rather than you just being intentionally dense. Am I so out of touch? No. It's the children who are wrong.

You can say the n-word if you want. And of course intent MATTERS, it's just that intent isn't everything. It's the difference between saying something that makes you a horrible person, and saying something that isn't a big deal but you should probably still apologize and try not to do it again. I don't think the way Matt said it is dehumanizing, or makes him a terrible, Mississippi-level racist. He was mentioning the word as a way to analyze it, and not out of any sort of racial prejudice towards black people. But I think he shouldn't have used it. Because even in that context, it just hits the ears wrong. Regardless of intent, you can't control the way that people will take it if you use the word. You just have to understand that in this society, there is no way that a non-black person can use it without being offensive, and you'd better have a damned good reason that it's worth offending people. We, as a society, may some day reach a point where the word can be used in academic and/or intellectual sense, similar to Matt's usage. But that is going to take decades at LEAST, and in the meantime you have to be mindful of the damage the word can do.

You should name your Chihuahuas Gordito and Chimichanga so everyone will think you're super racist. Then you can be like "No, I was just being IRONICALLY RACIST" and everyone will hate you even more. I think this is a great idea.

Anyone who wishes harm unto Stargoyle should be thrown into the hellish bowels of the gas planet, thus doing the universe a great service. Also, the main reason I came here is to say I love Stargoyle.

As much as I loved the episode (and make no mistake, it is great), was anyone else a little bit disappointed because it is now less likely that PFT will be doing Smurfs 2?

Is it racist if you go to an Asian country like China or Japan, use chopsticks in front of someone, and they are like "OMG you are white and yet you can use chopsticks! Amazing!"

Clearly you just think that way because you're black Shariq! I want to directly disagree with you but I am afraid of the white guilt I will feel in pointing out the inferiority of your way of thinking! So instead I will now go into a long, condescending, passive-aggressive rant about how there's something wrong with black culture, too many people having kids too young and out of wedlock, too many fathers who run out on their kids. I will also make sure to sandwich in a mini-rant about "rap" music somewhere. If you try to argue with me be warned! I am already prepared to get defensive and jump on you for using the "race card"! (OK seriously, you're right. Even among hoighty-toighty upper class white people, 27 years isn't that young, and for most of the world that's kind of old. If you personally want to wait until your 30s that's fine, but thinking "having kids at 27? OMG that's too young! Who would have kids at that age?" is kinda weird in any race or socioeconomic group.)

I hope Scottabot didn't listen to this episode, because if he did Matt is going to get his improv card revoked again for "M. Day Shyamalan"!

I had a friend in college who was born in India, and he said in some of his baby pictures he has a swastika on his head. As in, they shaved his hair and left just a swastika on top. Yes, it is unfortunate that the swastika has become so strongly associated with evil. It especially sucks for people from cultures that have been using the symbol with a totally different meaning for centuries. I don't think Andrew was even saying it's wrong to try and reclaim things, just that you have to be realistic about it. And you have to take responsibility for the way something will look to other people. Even if you have nonracist intentions, you know that wearing or saying certain things is going to make you look like a racist. So you either have to avoid doing it, or accept the fact that you will be constantly struggling to make people understand your real intentions. There's also the question of whether something is worth reclaiming. The Swastika, you could definitely make a case for. But the racist skinhead look is one tiny little niche that would probably have gone out of style almost immediately if not for the neo-nazis who made it into "their look." I don't understand why anyone would WANT to fight to reclaim it, especially when you could so easily take the look and put small variations on it to make yourself less racist-looking.

The title and description made it sound like this would be another slow-paced episode like last week, but there was quite a lot of excitement. Very nice. P.S. I love Stargoyle.