|
Post by Naos on May 13, 2018 22:30:54 GMT -5
It's not off-topic in any sense. As again, Larsson's words would place her under the hateful conduct policy. But as I said, no one would care and Spotify would likely have a double standard.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on May 13, 2018 22:36:25 GMT -5
Or perhaps Larsson is mostly irrelevant and her advocacy of man-hating is not quite as well known as R. Kelly’s very public past (and present) with sexual assault (etc)?
It’s an unnecessary whataboutism at this point.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 13, 2018 22:45:43 GMT -5
Technically, it is prejudice. Prioritizing one race over another. Prejudice and racism are two different things. They can be related, of course, but they are not synonyms. Please look up what "-ism" means. There is a difference in honoring a group and slighting a group out of discrimination. When someone holds a fund-raiser to help breast cancer research, that isn't some type of discrimination against other diseases. It's just a fund-raiser to highlight a specific disease. No, sexism involves discrimination and more so action. Again, please refer to the definition of "ism." To say you dislike men (or women) isn't in and of itself sexism; it's more about why you dislike the group and what you do about it. If someone feels women are inferior to women and acts out of that belief in hiring practices, sexual assault, whatever, then sexism is present. Sexism and racism have everything to do with power structures. Please define sexism and racism for me, as you see them. More so I just wonder why your focus seems to be on criticizing minorities (as in, the groups who lack power and have suffered for centuries) than on those with power rectifying the centuries of inequality.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 22:47:13 GMT -5
So what exactly are you upset about and how are you affected? So what exactly are you upset about and how are you affected? This question, across the like 500 other threads that have had this exact thing happen to them.
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 13, 2018 23:05:20 GMT -5
Please define sexism and racism for me, as you see them. More so I just wonder why your focus seems to be on criticizing minorities (as in, the groups who lack power and have suffered for centuries) than on those with power rectifying the centuries of inequality. I am a racial minority. Asian and Pacific Islander (though mixed a good amount of Russian, white, as well). If anything, it makes more angered. Why do I mainly criticize minorities? Because you can hate whites and men without much in the way of social consequence in the modern day. Plus, the problems of those groups (and their individual struggles) are constantly downplayed. And when they do succeed, their work is also downplayed. If you incite violence towards a group, say racial slurs with malicious intent, hate specific groups, commit violence towards individuals of a group for being part of that group as they were born, I'd say they were a sexist or a racist. Or homophobic. Or whatever other group hatred there is, depending on who they said or did this to.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 23:12:13 GMT -5
Soooo, can they kill off Chris Brown on Spotify now or is that by happening for some bs
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 13, 2018 23:26:21 GMT -5
Or perhaps Larsson is mostly irrelevant and her advocacy of man-hating is not quite as well known as R. Kelly’s very public past (and present) with sexual assault (etc)? It’s an unnecessary whataboutism at this point. Irrelevant? She's huge outside of the United States. And considering we were talking about what other artists would be impacted... Soooo, can they kill off Chris Brown on Spotify now or is that by happening for some bs It might not affect "Freaky Friday". He's not the lead, and they might not want to punish other aritists who've done nothing wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on May 14, 2018 6:05:39 GMT -5
Or perhaps Larsson is mostly irrelevant and her advocacy of man-hating is not quite as well known as R. Kelly’s very public past (and present) with sexual assault (etc)? It’s an unnecessary whataboutism at this point. Irrelevant? She's huge outside of the United States. And considering we were talking about what other artists would be impacted... Soooo, can they kill off Chris Brown on Spotify now or is that by happening for some bs It might not affect "Freaky Friday". He's not the lead, and they might not want to punish other aritists who've done nothing wrong. She is successful outside of the US, but does anyone really care about her as a person? Does the average person know about her “man hating”?
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on May 14, 2018 7:28:27 GMT -5
Please define sexism and racism for me, as you see them. More so I just wonder why your focus seems to be on criticizing minorities (as in, the groups who lack power and have suffered for centuries) than on those with power rectifying the centuries of inequality. Why do I mainly criticize minorities? Because you can hate whites and men without much in the way of social consequence in the modern day. Plus, the problems of those groups (and their individual struggles) are constantly downplayed. And when they do succeed, their work is also downplayed. And how, pray tell, are white men struggling to overcome centuries of systematic oppression...
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 14, 2018 8:57:19 GMT -5
Why do I mainly criticize minorities? Because you can hate whites and men without much in the way of social consequence in the modern day. Plus, the problems of those groups (and their individual struggles) are constantly downplayed. And when they do succeed, their work is also downplayed. And how, pray tell, are white men struggling to overcome centuries of systematic oppression... This. But hell, how are white males (and I ask this as one) even suffering from it today? That poster says people can hate on white men without consequence, but what consequences are white men even suffering from that supposed hate? And is more of it even "hate," or is it just things white men aren't used to dealing with?
|
|
newpower
3x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 3,532
|
Post by newpower on May 14, 2018 9:13:00 GMT -5
Let me get this clear: are you saying that Zara Larsson tweet is on the same level as R. Kelly actions? Am I missing something? Is freedom of speech already something from the past?
|
|
Chelsea Press 2
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
The way I feel is sexual, when you're next to me
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,056
|
Post by Chelsea Press 2 on May 14, 2018 12:39:07 GMT -5
I understand the reasoning and thought behind this, but if they do it for one problematic individual, they will have to do it for all of them in order for it to be consistent and to not come across as allowing some who have apparent privilege and whatnot. There will be something problematic or potentially illegal associated with nearly every artist so then they won't be able to include any of them.
At my other board, they made a list of artists that they felt should be removed and the reasons for why. I was going "WHO?" when I saw 90% of them so here are some of them and the reasons why that they gave:
2Pac - for his criminal past Ariana Grande - for her donut incident Azealia Banks - for her criminal past, shocking incendiary statements, hate speech Camila Cabello - for her racism involving Fifth Harmony and the Obamas Chris Brown - for his criminal past Dixie Chicks - for their incendiary statements Dr. Luke - for his alleged wrongdoings <---some were saying that any productions associated with a problematic person should also be dealt with in the same manner as ones where they are the primary person Foxy Brown - for her criminal past Jay-Z - for his criminal past Justin Bieber - for his criminal past Kelis - for her criminal past Khia - for her criminal past Lady Gaga - for working with R. Kelly and Terry Richardson Lil Kim - for her criminal past Madonna - for her blasphemy and shocking incendiary statements Marky Mark & The Funky Bunch - for his criminal past Meek Mill - for his criminal past Michael Jackson - for his alleged wrongdoings Michelle Shocked - for her homophobic statements Natalia Kills/Teddy Sinclair - for her shocking incendiary, homophobic statements Phil Spector - for his alleged wrongdoings <---some were saying that any productions associated with a problematic person should also be dealt with in the same manner as ones where they are the primary person R. Kelly - for his criminal wrongdoings Remy Ma - for her criminal past Sinead O'Connor - for her shocking, incendiary statements
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 14, 2018 12:47:33 GMT -5
I understand the reasoning and thought behind this, but if they do it for one problematic individual, they will have to do it for all of them in order for it to be consistent and to not come across as allowing some who have apparent privilege and whatnot. There will be something problematic or potentially illegal associated with nearly every artist so then they won't be able to include any of them. At my other board, they made a list of artists that they felt should be removed and the reasons for why. I was going "WHO?" when I saw 90% of them so here are some of them and the reasons why that they gave: 2Pac - for his criminal past Ariana Grande - for her donut incident Azealia Banks - for her criminal past, shocking incendiary statements, hate speech Camila Cabello - for her racism involving Fifth Harmony and the Obamas Chris Brown - for his criminal past Dixie Chicks - for their incendiary statements Dr. Luke - for his alleged wrongdoings <---some were saying that any productions associated with a problematic person should also be dealt with in the same manner as ones where they are the primary person Foxy Brown - for her criminal past Jay-Z - for his criminal past Justin Bieber - for his criminal past Kelis - for her criminal past Khia - for her criminal past Lady Gaga - for working with R. Kelly and Terry Richardson Lil Kim - for her criminal past Madonna - for her blasphemy and shocking incendiary statements Marky Mark & The Funky Bunch - for his criminal past Meek Mill - for his criminal past Michael Jackson - for his alleged wrongdoings Michelle Shocked - for her homophobic statements Natalia Kills/Teddy Sinclair - for her shocking incendiary, homophobic statements Phil Spector - for his alleged wrongdoings <---some were saying that any productions associated with a problematic person should also be dealt with in the same manner as ones where they are the primary person R. Kelly - for his criminal wrongdoings Remy Ma - for her criminal past Sinead O'Connor - for her shocking, incendiary statements Lol some of these are lame. Ariana Grande for her donut licking? Dixie Chicks for disliking George Bush 17 years ago?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2018 13:09:36 GMT -5
Blacklisted for the donut incident.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,972
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on May 14, 2018 14:11:23 GMT -5
NaosI love when people ignore direct questions like "Could you tell me how you personally define racism and sexism?"
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 14, 2018 14:18:18 GMT -5
And how, pray tell, are white men struggling to overcome centuries of systematic oppression... This. But hell, how are white males (and I ask this as one) even suffering from it today? That poster says people can hate on white men without consequence, but what consequences are white men even suffering from that supposed hate? And is more of it even "hate," or is it just things white men aren't used to dealing with? I never said anything about systematic issues. But people try to act like they don't have any problems, and any success they have is attributed to "privilege", and not hard work. Even though most privileges can be attributed not to race, but class. Are you really going to tell me a rich black kid in the wealthy, residential areas of Los Angeles, is better off than the poor white kid living in a trailer in Louisana? Sorry, being white doesn't make your life inherently better. You see many white people have this "white guilt", when they shouldn't be. White people today aren't responsible for what their ancestors did. And literally, no white person in North America is a slave owner. And white racists are an incredibly small minority. Hell, racists in general are. They are not responsible for your problems, nor are they culpable. Because judging people for their race is asinine. But if you want an institutionalized issue, you can look to the justice system. Where men get harsher sentences than women when all factors are taken into account except for sex. If you want a societal issue, rape of men (or any violence towards men) isn't taken seriously as violence towards women. Even by police. 47% of domestic violence in the UK is towards men, and despite this, there isn't much in the way of shelters. Men are more likely to be murdered, and the victims of violent crime. They make up almost all war and workplace deaths. Homeless? Mostly men. Family courts have a negative bias towards fathers. Women are making up far more university graduates than men. But hey. Gotta love dat privilege. The system doesn't benefit white people. It benefits the wealthy. Just because most of the wealthy tends to be white, it doesn't mean it benefits white people. And when you perpetuate and celebrate hating a specific race or gender, it makes you just as bad as the people you're against. When someone can say "I hate white people", and be praised, but "I hate black people", and be hated... There's a problem.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on May 14, 2018 14:26:00 GMT -5
Just as I expected, you go full MRA...
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 14, 2018 14:26:52 GMT -5
But people try to act like they don't have any problems, and any success they have is attributed to "privilege", and not hard work. Even though most privileges can be attributed not to race, but class. Are you really going to tell me a rich black kid in the wealthy, residential areas of Los Angeles, is better off than the poor white kid living in a trailer in Louisana? Sorry, being white doesn't make your life inherently better. You see many white people have this "white guilt", when they shouldn't be. White people today aren't responsible for what their ancestors did. And literally, no white person in North America is a slave owner. And white racists are an incredibly small minority. Hell, racists in general are. They are not responsible for your problems, nor are they culpable. Because judging people for their race is asinine. But if you want an institutionalized issue, you can look to the justice system. Where men get harsher sentences than women when all factors are taken into account except for sex. If you want a societal issue, rape of men (or any violence towards men) isn't taken seriously as violence towards women. Even by police. 47% of domestic violence in the UK is towards men, and despite this, there isn't much in the way of shelters. Men are more likely to be murdered, and the victims of violent crime. They make up almost all war and workplace deaths. Homeless? Mostly men. Family courts have a negative bias towards fathers. But hey. Gotta love dat privilege. Ok now I see your agenda and where you are coming from. You don't understand the notion of "privilege," or more specifically "white privilege." It isn't what you are suggesting. It's also interesting you are now suggesting racists are a small minority, because in terms of the definition of "racism" you seemed to be using, I think like 99.9% of the population is racist. I am truly confused now.
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 14, 2018 14:29:07 GMT -5
Just as I expected, you go full MRA... I don't think you even know what the MRA is about (I certainly don't), but labeling someone that and just leaving would be like me calling you a crazy radical leftist and therefore, anything you say is invalid. Ok now I see your agenda and where you are coming from. You don't understand the notion of "privilege," or more specifically "white privilege." It isn't what you are suggesting. It's also interesting you are now suggesting racists are a small minority, because in terms of the definition of "racism" you seemed to be using, I think like 99.9% of the population is racist. I am truly confused now. And your definition of racism likely involves minorities not being able to be racist, yes? And explain "white privilege" then. Come on. And none of it better be able to be attributed to class.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 14, 2018 14:41:27 GMT -5
Naos First of all, your examples don’t make sense. “White privilege” isn’t about comparing people in wildly different situations; it’s about comparing people in similar situations. Comparing an upperclass black man to a poor white man is beside the point. Of course class plays a role in privilege and also things people see as racism, but there is also evidence to show it’s easier for white people to be upper class, to get out of being lower class, etc. And in and of itself my definition of racism does not involve what you say; I don’t even consider that example as being a direct part of racism. Again, “ism” implies systems/actions/paradigms, so “racism” is about systemic issues, power structures, etc. I asked you several posts ago to define some things, and as of yet you have not.
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 14, 2018 14:54:45 GMT -5
jenglisbe Already defined it, but if you want a simple version: "Racism is the practice of discriminating against people based on their race, national or ethnic background." That's it. No system involved. I used the example of different backgrounds for a reason. What benefit does the poor white kid have for being white? Pretty much nothing. And yes. Under your definition of racism, minorities couldn't be racist due to "power structures". Guess I can't be racist then. That's neat. Guess white people can't be racist in Japan or India.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 14, 2018 15:02:41 GMT -5
What benefit does the poor white kid have for being white? Pretty much nothing. Again, that is beside the point. “White privilege” isn’t about a white person having or not having privilege in and of him/herself. The point is that poor white kid has advantages over a poor black or hispani kid. You seem to be grouping racism, prejudice, discrimination, etc into one thing. That just isn’t how it works.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on May 14, 2018 16:22:34 GMT -5
Can we just ban him already...
I mean seriously, how many threads is he going to hijack with the same crap
|
|
newpower
3x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 3,532
|
Post by newpower on May 14, 2018 16:31:23 GMT -5
Can we just ban him already... I mean seriously, how many threads is he going to hijack with the same crap Why ban him? For having an opinion? You might not agree with his opinion/ideas (and I don't), but that's not reason to ban him.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on May 14, 2018 16:46:15 GMT -5
Can we just ban him already... I mean seriously, how many threads is he going to hijack with the same crap Why ban him? For having an opinion? You might not agree with his opinion/ideas (and I don't), but that's not reason to ban him. Trolling Trolling is defined as: A message (including a post, series of posts, PM(s), image(s), title(s), status(es), or signature(s)), posted with the intent of upsetting or disturbing another poster, or derailing a thread, in a manner or under circumstances unlikely to encourage substantive, on-topic discussion Check every thread he's posted in recently. You'll notice a pattern. It's not just that he has an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 14, 2018 20:06:46 GMT -5
Why ban him? For having an opinion? You might not agree with his opinion/ideas (and I don't), but that's not reason to ban him. Trolling Trolling is defined as: A message (including a post, series of posts, PM(s), image(s), title(s), status(es), or signature(s)), posted with the intent of upsetting or disturbing another poster, or derailing a thread, in a manner or under circumstances unlikely to encourage substantive, on-topic discussion Check every thread he's posted in recently. You'll notice a pattern. It's not just that he has an opinion. It's not derailing. Part of the discussion was other artists that could be affected. And I brought up Zara Larsson. Now if it upset you... Well, not my intention, but I'm sorry how easily you're offended when someone doesn't agree with your politics.
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,543
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on May 15, 2018 16:32:19 GMT -5
No, Nachos did not turn yet another thread into a moment where he declares privilege and racism aren't real. What is this, like the 4th thread?
|
|
|
Post by Naos on May 15, 2018 16:35:45 GMT -5
No, Nachos did not turn yet another thread into a moment where he declares privilege and racism aren't real. What is this, like the 4th thread? Nobody said racism wasn't real. Maybe get better at reading comprehension? Part of my argument was literally anyone can be racist regardless of skin colour.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 16, 2018 7:49:22 GMT -5
No, Nachos did not turn yet another thread into a moment where he declares privilege and racism aren't real. What is this, like the 4th thread? Nobody said racism wasn't real. Maybe get better at reading comprehension? Part of my argument was literally anyone can be racist regardless of skin colour.The real question is, why does that matter when it's black people getting police called on them for meeting at Starbucks, BBQing in a public park, etc? Why is that your focus when it's black people consistently being shot by police for no valid reason? Why does that matter when it's black people who are over-represented in prisons? Why does that matter when it's black people who are over-represented when it comes to being of lower economic status? You also said earlier a very small amount of people are racist. Nope. Many are racist, as this trend of calling the police on black people doing everyday things is showing. Of course Karen says she didn't call cops because the people were black, so in other words she is in denial/ignorance of her racism. As are you, it seems.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,533
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 16, 2018 9:47:27 GMT -5
|
|