Microsoft accused of racism: PC getting out of hand
- Thread starter Icarus
- Start date
- Status
I fucking hate furries.
W
wana10
S
SeraRelm
Yes, really.
S
SeraRelm
Really? I never saw one channel named "White Entertainment Television". Thank you for proving me wr- wait, you didn't. Carry on.
S
SeraRelm
If a white person speaks up about wanting to have something special just for them based on the color of their skin, they're damned and called racist but it's ok for everyone else. If you don't understand that, the rest of the conversation on that one, small aspect of my previous comment is meaningless.
I think i understand Sera's point. The thing is, many people have the mindset that its ok for minorities to one thing, but not ok for whites to do the exact same thing, lest they be labeled as racists or hate mongers. For example, several years ago, I had a college class called "Cultural Diversity". I once posed a question to the professor where I asked if she considered groups such as the New Black Panthers, a group labeled as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation group, to have unacceptable attitudes like she considered the KKK and other white supremacist groups to have unacceptable attitudes. Her response was that she saw no problem with the Black Panthers because "they aren't in power". That just smacks of hypocrisy to me.
First, I'll note for the record that I do not support many of the militaristic tactics employed by the black panthers. (From what I know the organization as a whole has done a lot of good things though, and members had a lot of diverse opinions on how to accomplish their goals). Regardless, I do think there whether something is "right" or not depends a lot on the situation, and who holds power (and how they wield that power) is an important variable to consider.
In an ideal world, any oppressed group would always be able to use Martin Luther King style tactics in order to accomplish their goals. In the case of American racism in the 1960s, obviously MLK pacifism worked wonders, and the reason it was effective was we already lived in a democracy that valued freedom and equality, with a free press. If MLK or Gandhi had attempted what they did in a dictatorship or a world where the culture placed no value on equality at all, they would have accomplished nothing. In that case, I'd consider militaristic tactics for an oppressed minority not only acceptable but necessary.
In the context of 1960s America, I do think some of the extremist elements of the Black Panthers were wrong, but I do think they would have been even more wrong if implemented, not by a minority struggling against injustice, but by people in power trying to maintain the status quo.
Now, with regards to "W.E.T." vs B.E.T, the reason a black television network is acceptable and a white television will draw criticism is the inherent mindsets involved in creating them. There's nothing inherently good or bad about "black" or "white" television. But BET was created as a response to the vast majority of programming being white centric. Black people didn't see themselves represented, so they went and made a network where they could represent themselves.
By contrast, what kind of white person would even WANT a network to themselves? They're already represented all over the place. The only people who would actually want to make it are either genuine white supremacists or people completely clueless about institutional racism and power imbalances. "They have a network so clearly we should ALSO have a network" ignores the reasoning behind BET in the first place. WET programming would either be identical to most other stations, or would be actually racist. Neither strikes me as a good reason to start a brand new station.
(Having said all that, I don't actually think BET is that great a network, but that's a whole 'nother story).
In an ideal world, any oppressed group would always be able to use Martin Luther King style tactics in order to accomplish their goals. In the case of American racism in the 1960s, obviously MLK pacifism worked wonders, and the reason it was effective was we already lived in a democracy that valued freedom and equality, with a free press. If MLK or Gandhi had attempted what they did in a dictatorship or a world where the culture placed no value on equality at all, they would have accomplished nothing. In that case, I'd consider militaristic tactics for an oppressed minority not only acceptable but necessary.
In the context of 1960s America, I do think some of the extremist elements of the Black Panthers were wrong, but I do think they would have been even more wrong if implemented, not by a minority struggling against injustice, but by people in power trying to maintain the status quo.
Now, with regards to "W.E.T." vs B.E.T, the reason a black television network is acceptable and a white television will draw criticism is the inherent mindsets involved in creating them. There's nothing inherently good or bad about "black" or "white" television. But BET was created as a response to the vast majority of programming being white centric. Black people didn't see themselves represented, so they went and made a network where they could represent themselves.
By contrast, what kind of white person would even WANT a network to themselves? They're already represented all over the place. The only people who would actually want to make it are either genuine white supremacists or people completely clueless about institutional racism and power imbalances. "They have a network so clearly we should ALSO have a network" ignores the reasoning behind BET in the first place. WET programming would either be identical to most other stations, or would be actually racist. Neither strikes me as a good reason to start a brand new station.
(Having said all that, I don't actually think BET is that great a network, but that's a whole 'nother story).
S
SeraRelm
But UPN already existed.
I actually believe Ghandi tried and failed to do his style in other countries, explicitly because they governments of said countries were more than willing to bust open the heads of protesters.
She's saying it was bland and uninteresting, which basically sums up what most people think of the contributions of white people to entertainment
Wouldn't surprise me.
- Status