On Television, Cinema and Race

Hypatian wrote:

How can anyone imagine that the above sentence is appropriate to write as an [em]argument that the GOP isn't racist[/em]?

How can they be racist? They suppressed their gag reflex, didn't they?
*facepalm*

Completely agree.

Hypatian wrote:

And in reaction: f*cking seriously? How can anyone imagine that the above sentence is appropriate to write as an [em]argument that the GOP isn't racist[/em]? If true, it suggests that "people with conventional views" are f*cking racist. If these people are supposed to be the majority of people who make up the GOP? They're still f*cking racist. And if someone thinks that this is a majority viewpoint in America and that that it's [em]acceptable[/em] that people continue to believe that? That person is a f*cking racist.

From the Democracy Corps GOP focus group memo:

We expected that in this comfortable setting or in their private written notes, some would make a racial reference or racist slur when talking about the African American President. None did. They know that is deeply non-PC and are conscious about how they are perceived. But focusing on that misses how central is race to the worldview of Republican voters. They have an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly “minority,” and their party is getting whooped by a Democratic Party that uses big government programs that benefit mostly minorities, create dependency and a new electoral majority. Barack Obama and Obamacare is a racial flashpoint for many Evangelical and Tea Party voters.

The big issues Cohen brought up are entirely about race. Expansion of government? That's conservative code for the Democratic party securing their political power by giving free stuff to blacks and other minorities (by taking from hard working whites, of course). Immigration? That's conservative code for brown people not knowing their place and having the gall to be both seen *and* heard.

OG_slinger wrote:
We expected that in this comfortable setting or in their private written notes, some would make a racial reference or racist slur when talking about the African American President. None did. They know that is deeply non-PC and are conscious about how they are perceived. But focusing on that misses how central is race to the worldview of Republican voters. They have an acute sense that they are white in a country that is becoming increasingly “minority,” and their party is getting whooped by a Democratic Party that uses big government programs that benefit mostly minorities, create dependency and a new electoral majority. Barack Obama and Obamacare is a racial flashpoint for many Evangelical and Tea Party voters.

The big issues Cohen brought up are entirely about race. Expansion of government? That's conservative code for the Democratic party securing their political power by giving free stuff to blacks and other minorities (by taking from hard working whites, of course). Immigration? That's conservative code for brown people not knowing their place and having the gall to be both seen *and* heard.

The thing that gets me is how their perception on the subject of "free stuff to minorities" is based on untruths and there is no effort on their part to comprehend the reality of the situation.

After all, if blacks constitute 39.8% of welfare recipients and whites constitute 38.8% of welfare recipients, the idea that whites receive the least "free stuff" is extremely flawed. So if they want to suggest that blacks receive more free stuff than whites based on 1 percentage point then they need to accept that whites receive twice as much free stuff as Hispanics since Hispanics make up 15.7% of welfare recipients. How do you like that, whitey? Getting free stuff at the expense of those hard working Hispanics.

Logic is fun.

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen Isn’t The Only Columnist Confused By The De Blasio-McCray Marriage

In an August column on De Blasio and McCray, Maureen Dowd lingered at even greater length on the fact that McCray used to identify as a lesbian, and that she’d treated questions about her sexual orientation from Essence as if they were fussy and old-fashioned. Then, Dowd went on to compare McCray and Christine Quinn’s wife to Anthony Weiner’s sexual escapades, suggesting that they were all part of an atmosphere of sexual strangeness that had engulfed the race.
FSeven wrote:

The thing that gets me is how their perception on the subject of "free stuff to minorities" is based on untruths and there is no effort on their part to comprehend the reality of the situation.

After all, if blacks constitute 39.8% of welfare recipients and whites constitute 38.8% of welfare recipients, the idea that whites receive the least "free stuff" is extremely flawed. So if they want to suggest that blacks receive more free stuff than whites based on 1 percentage point then they need to accept that whites receive twice as much free stuff than Hispanics since Hispanics make up 15.7% of welfare recipients. Logic is fun.

Likely they would claim that blacks receive a disproportionate amount of "free stuff" because they only make up 13% of the population and yet "consume" 39% of the welfare benefits when whites, who make up about 78% of the population, only get about 40% of the welfare benefits. That argument, of course, fails to account for relative poverty levels since we're talking about needs-based programs.

From my experiences with (sadly) my family and friends a great deal of this attitude comes down to perceived unfairness, most of which seems to happen at the grocery store check out. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard a story about a "welfare mom" who was buying steak when the poor, downtrodden white taxpayer could only afford ground chuck. I even heard that complaint from someone I knew who was receiving food stamps and had just bought steak with said benefits because she wanted to "treat" herself.

That leads to the second erroneous perception about benefits: you or people like you deserve the benefits, everyone else is exploiting them because they're [insert racist, bootstrap capitalism Mad Lib rant here].

OG_slinger wrote:
FSeven wrote:

The thing that gets me is how their perception on the subject of "free stuff to minorities" is based on untruths and there is no effort on their part to comprehend the reality of the situation.

After all, if blacks constitute 39.8% of welfare recipients and whites constitute 38.8% of welfare recipients, the idea that whites receive the least "free stuff" is extremely flawed. So if they want to suggest that blacks receive more free stuff than whites based on 1 percentage point then they need to accept that whites receive twice as much free stuff than Hispanics since Hispanics make up 15.7% of welfare recipients. Logic is fun.

Likely they would claim that blacks receive a disproportionate amount of "free stuff" because they only make up 13% of the population and yet "consume" 39% of the welfare benefits when whites, who make up about 78% of the population, only get about 40% of the welfare benefits. That argument, of course, fails to account for relative poverty levels since we're talking about needs-based programs.

From my experiences with (sadly) my family and friends a great deal of this attitude comes down to perceived unfairness, most of which seems to happen at the grocery store check out. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard a story about a "welfare mom" who was buying steak when the poor, downtrodden white taxpayer could only afford ground chuck. I even heard that complaint from someone I knew who was receiving food stamps and had just bought steak with said benefits because she wanted to "treat" herself.

That leads to the second erroneous perception about benefits: you or people like you deserve the benefits, everyone else is exploiting them because they're [insert racist, bootstrap capitalism Mad Lib rant here].

The only moral government handout is my government handout.

I think the only thing that you can prove from the "interracial gag article" is that the author has a problem with interracial marriages. The vast majority of Americans across all demographics and regions support interracial marriage according to the latest polls.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...

Well, you can tell a little more than that. Cohen has a problem with interracial marriages. The Washington Post apparently feels it's OK to indulge his prejudices.

But yes, the point is not that his claims have any merit—it's that his claims are apparently publishable by a major national newspaper, rather than leading to him immediately being fired when they come to light.

Love it. Powerful stuff.

Amazing video.

I have nothing to add to this thread today other than a friend's gag that somewhere in Hollywood, there's an executive looking at treatments for the Luke Cage TV show and the Black Panther movie, sucking through his teeth and going "...but does he have to be black?"

Thanks for the video, Tanglebones. I knew I was going to have some assumptions challenged as soon as I saw that one black kid was a Nashville Predators fan.

Prederick wrote:

I have nothing to add to this thread today other than a friend's gag that somewhere in Hollywood, there's an executive looking at treatments for the Luke Cage TV show and the Black Panther movie, sucking through his teeth and going "...but does he have to be black?"

Alternative: Marvel creates new sidekicks as Twerk Team USA gets mutant powers.

some bearded guy wrote:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He also said some unfortunate things about homosexuality.

And then this happened.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/AaPYOW9.jpg)

Seth wrote:
some bearded guy wrote:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He also said some unfortunate things about homosexuality.

And then this happened.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/AaPYOW9.jpg)

I enjoyed the show, but will say, Phil's occasional "this is what's wrong with this country" statements always made me wonder what WASN'T included in the show to make it less controversial... and it was inevitable that he was going to say something somewhere outside of the show and have this crop up. Something tells me though, if he knows these statements are the reason he's in trouble, that he's more likely just to not do the show anymore unless he's talked into it by his wife and sons.

Let him say what he wants. The ratings will change if people care. And if they don't, maybe they can do a reality show about Richard Preston and the Confederate White Knights.

Nah, that guy's almost as full of sh*t as Matt Walsh, whose blog is so offensive I won't even link it here.

Apparently the most difficult thing for conservatives to understand is the stark, bare, simple difference between freedom of speech and freedom from the consequences of speech.

Oh good, more false equivocation "enlightenment" about what the "real bigotry" or "real oppression" is.

A&E didn't want to feel like they were endorsing this man by giving him a platform. What the article fails to consider immediately before rushing to its need to flip the paradigm is the simple fact that eventually, the company itself is associated with condoning things by presenting them again and again.

Of course, if the article wanted to try and examine that particular phenomenon and its worth, that would have been interesting. But no, we're left with some run-of-the-mill "look at my clever way of turning this around" editorializing that you can find in pretty much any amateur blog.

edit: It occurs to me there's a certain irony in an article pointing out we should all be ashamed and stop it while bemoaning how we unfairly try to silence those who don't agree.

Brandon Ambrosino is nothing more that a gay version of Michael Steele: a palatable version of a minority that Republicans would otherwise find icky or scary if they didn't spout conservative bullsh*t.

Bloo Driver wrote:

edit: It occurs to me there's a certain irony in an article pointing out we should all be ashamed and stop it while bemoaning how we unfairly try to silence those who don't agree.

The author is a gay man who went to Liberty University. He's the living embodiment of irony.

Bloo Driver wrote:

edit: It occurs to me there's a certain irony in an article pointing out we should all be ashamed and stop it while bemoaning how we unfairly try to silence those who don't agree.

No. It specifically says we should use this as an opportunity to educate and open a dialogue. The author of that piece is a gay man, btw.

Edit - And I love how saying, "rather than silence them, use the opportunity to educate them" is considered bullsh*t around here. But then it shouldn't be surprising that y'all aren't big proponents of open debate ;).

cheeba wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

edit: It occurs to me there's a certain irony in an article pointing out we should all be ashamed and stop it while bemoaning how we unfairly try to silence those who don't agree.

No. It specifically says we should use this as an opportunity to educate and open a dialogue. The author of that piece is a gay man, btw.

Edit - And I love how saying, "rather than silence them, use the opportunity to educate them" is considered bullsh*t around here. But then it shouldn't be surprising that y'all aren't big proponents of open debate ;).

Thanks for the distortion. Obviously I didn't actually say that, but pointed out that he breaks the first rule he's so passionate about. The point itself is valid - engaging people rather than silencing them is great. But when you wrap that point up in a tone of "you should be ashamed, look at you all spouting your ignorance, shut up and stop that," it's particularly hollow. On top of that, how do we "engage" a man on a reality TV show who is a bunch of edited and chopped up clips of scenes? Again, the point itself is fine, but he makes it in a very self defeating way.

And here I thought I was going to have to boycott all things associated with the Upright Citizens Brigade.

cheeba wrote:

Edit - And I love how saying, "rather than silence them, use the opportunity to educate them" is considered bullsh*t around here. But then it shouldn't be surprising that y'all aren't big proponents of open debate ;).

I suppose it's my fault for getting too meta. I don't care what Duck Dynamo believes. I watched 5 minutes of that show, once, while frantically searching for the remote because that specific type of Human Zoo Voyeurism doesn't appeal to me. Duck Dynamo's beliefs about buttholes isn't what this is about, and therefore I really, really don't care about changing his mind.

The meta part is that Duck Dynamo is an employee of A&E, and if an employee does something against his employer's message, it's well within his employer's right to termination that relationship.

Or, as the A.V. Club put it: Sarah Palin and others protest the revoking of Duck Dynasty star's First Amendment rights to be on a TV show.

edit -- I should grudgingly point out that's it's not ALL Human Zoo Voyeurism that annoys me. I enjoyed Buck Wild until that one idiot killed himself.

Who's silenced him? Who's refused to engage him? The comments weren't even made on the show; they were completely outside of A&E, made during an interview with GQ. Clearly Phil has other places to make these statements, probably now more than ever.

As to educating... yeah, that works so well with bible-thumpers.

I have found odd about this is the focus on his gay comments over the racial ones. Although, they may have just been bizarre rather than offensive.

NathanialG wrote:

I have found odd about this is the focus on his gay comments over the racial ones. Although, they may have just been bizarre rather than offensive.

Yeah I've seen a couple people point that out. I think the issue is that the comments about black folks really was more of the run of the mill "blah blah blah lazy entitlement generation". They can easily be interpreted as "slavery was fine dunno why everyone's all mad" but that's not what you get on the face of them. Whereas the quotes about homosexuals was just more direct and disparaging to the people.

Seth wrote:

The meta part is that Duck Dynamo is an employee of A&E, and if an employee does something against his employer's message, it's well within his employer's right to termination that relationship.

Sure. I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing First Amendment. A&E is well within its rights. But should it have suspended him? I think it's a horrible idea and shows horrible judgement (yes, with the e! :P) on their part and it will backfire on them. Or it may be a marketing ploy in which case it could turn out brilliant ;). Either way, he's a bible thumper from the deep south, it's not like A&E could have possibly been surprised by his views on buttholes.