Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Crunkus » 30 Aug 2016, 22:36

beowulf7 wrote:So if I don't black my face for Bob Marley day but I wear a Bob Marley mask - have I done wrong?


I'm with K. What do you mean by "have you done wrong?" Do you want a comment that is independent of any unmentioned variables that may be in play? Nearly anything can be inappropriate given the correct circumstances. But too much of the answer for me comes down to the basic question K asked of what do you specifically mean by "have I do wrong?"

beowulf7 wrote:I'm starting to wonder if intent to mimic a particular person is not fundamentally different to simply representing yourself as of a different skin colour. So "look at me I'm a black man" v " Look at me. I'm Stevie Wonder"


I think most of the time, when you oversimplify a complex situation, you're bound to come up with an inadequate model.
Last edited by Crunkus on 30 Aug 2016, 23:26, edited 2 times in total.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Keirador » 30 Aug 2016, 22:37

"fleet of slippery sloops" ftw
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 8742
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Crunkus » 30 Aug 2016, 22:43

Rolan A Doobie wrote:
Antigonos wrote:As to legal bans on certain forms of speech - they exist in many places and there certainly has been increased discussion of the possible value in extending them. I call that that a very real slippery slope.


I'm not so sure that's true. It was pretty recently that the Supreme Court heard the Snyder v. Phelps case and decided 8-1 to uphold the rights of known hate-mongers at Westboro Baptist to wave protest signs saying "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" at a Marine's funeral.


"Many places" does rightfully extend beyond U.S. borders.

The right to free speech as an absolute tends to be subject to the same flaws as most absolutes. You can chalk it up to necessary flaws. With the lack of accountability lawmakers tend to have in the U.S. necessary flaws is probably something I could live with I guess. Much of the world gets by without this however, and is arguably better for it without slipping down any slopes.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Keirador » 30 Aug 2016, 22:45

To flip the question here, if you know that some people are going to be really offended by donning blackface why are you doing it? Just to prove you can? In any other context we would just call that rudeness. I really like running my finger around the rim of a wineglass to make that high piercing tone. And that is legal for me to do. But it bothers most people, so I don't do it. If I was doing it, and somebody asked me to stop, and I refuse to because it's totally legal and I'm well within my rights, I'm not making some brave stance for freedom and liberty, I'm just being an asshole. If somebody then calls me an asshole, it's pretty damn hypocritical of me to respond that they're being offensive and shouldn't say such things to me, and maybe perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to say such things to me (Trumpian language there). It's quite entitled of me, and it puts my whims on equal footing with their actual basic liberties. I have a right to ring the wineglasses, dammit, but you saying you don't like it and you find me disrespectful for doing it, hmm, now that's what's really oppressive.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 8742
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby beowulf7 » 30 Aug 2016, 22:46

Crunk - I'm on message with the thread title

"inherently wrong or sometimes ok?"

If your answer is "sometimes ok" that I have no beef with that (and that allows as many variable as you want). If your answer is "inherently wrong" I have no beef with that.

I don't come at this with a fixed position and some of my questions are feeble attempts to get to the point where the underlying issue is clear. For example, why is a mask ok but make-up is not? (If indeed that is the case).

If you want to spend hours arguing about what we should be arguing about then I'll leave you to it. We CAN have a conversation without completing a Phd first ;)
User avatar
beowulf7
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:55
Location: Kent, UK
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (973)
All-game rating: (975)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Crunkus » 30 Aug 2016, 22:54

beowulf7 wrote:Crunk - I'm on message with the thread title

"inherently wrong or sometimes ok?"

If your answer is "sometimes ok" that I have no beef with that (and that allows as many variable as you want). If your answer is "inherently wrong" I have no beef with that.


Again, "inherently wrong or sometimes ok?"

My answer is mu.

Is it inherently wrong or sometimes ok if I fuck your mother?

Answering with either "inherently wrong" or "sometimes ok" seems...an inadequate treatment of the stated question. It doesn't have to be...but sometimes it is. I'm arguing that in this case it is. You can say you aren't interested in "spending hours arguing about what we should be arguing about" but that's nonsense because neither am I. You're just dismissing the point that's being made. That's fine...but sometimes simply saying "answer with A or B" is a means to misunderstand or misrepresent a topic. Not always, but sometimes. If you're not interested in the question of whether this is one of those times, that's up to you. But it seems relevant to the underlying issue the OP is dealing with with, binary ultimatum or no.

Athiesm: Inherently wrong, or sometimes ok?
Last edited by Crunkus on 30 Aug 2016, 23:22, edited 2 times in total.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Rolan A Doobie » 30 Aug 2016, 22:57

Crunkus wrote:
Rolan A Doobie wrote:
Antigonos wrote:As to legal bans on certain forms of speech - they exist in many places and there certainly has been increased discussion of the possible value in extending them. I call that that a very real slippery slope.


I'm not so sure that's true. It was pretty recently that the Supreme Court heard the Snyder v. Phelps case and decided 8-1 to uphold the rights of known hate-mongers at Westboro Baptist to wave protest signs saying "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God For Dead Soldiers" at a Marine's funeral.


"Many places" does rightfully extend beyond U.S. borders.

The right to free speech as an absolute tends to be subject to the same flaws as most absolutes. You can chalk it up to necessary flaws. With the lack of accountability lawmakers tend to have in the U.S. necessary flaws is probably something I could live with I guess. Much of the world gets by without this however, and is arguably better for it without slipping down any slopes.


Actually, much of the world has something rather close to this.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

It's not quite the same as the US version of free speech, but it's generally in the same neighborhood.
User avatar
Rolan A Doobie
 
Posts: 5295
Joined: 08 Apr 2009, 08:10
Location: ♫♫♫♫ Technically, I'm homeless ♫♫♫♫
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Keirador » 30 Aug 2016, 23:04

So being strictly relevant to the thread title, I'd say given the history and current state of our world right now, it is almost never advisable and almost always some combination of ignorant and disrespectful. In every case in which blackface is used, the practitioner should always give serious thought to just not doing it. I can think of a handful of artistic and sociological situations in which the benefits outweigh the potential harm, but probably just don't. If your Halloween / fancy dress costume doesn't work without blackface, it probably doesn't work at all, work on your costume game.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 8742
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Crunkus » 30 Aug 2016, 23:10

Rolan A Doobie wrote:
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

It's not quite the same as the US version of free speech, but it's generally in the same neighborhood.


A constitutionally enshrined right is also different from one agreed to "in principle" or even enshrined in mutable law such a the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (whose section 1 specifically says that rights are not absolute and can be limited by government if there is compelling reasons for doing so). What's good for the second amendment is good for the first. Sometimes context changes and matters. Some government's treatment of how rights work is quite different from that of the United States in that regard. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes that's not so good. Which is about what you'd expect.

Rights come down to what and how they are applied and how they can be altered to fit the needs and context of the time. Most places agree in principle to such rights just like they agree in principle to the cuteness of puppies.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Blackface - inherently wrong or sometimes ok?

Postby Crunkus » 30 Aug 2016, 23:16

Keirador wrote:So being strictly relevant to the thread title, I'd say given the history and current state of our world right now, it is almost never advisable and almost always some combination of ignorant and disrespectful. In every case in which blackface is used, the practitioner should always give serious thought to just not doing it. I can think of a handful of artistic and sociological situations in which the benefits outweigh the potential harm, but probably just don't. If your Halloween / fancy dress costume doesn't work without blackface, it probably doesn't work at all, work on your costume game.


So..."sometimes ok". See? You're in complete agreement with Beo. It's like magic.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest