Where racists and the "woke" agree...

Post Reply New Topic

Did he actually say the two terms have nothing in common, or did he say a similar sentence that you interpreted as him saying that? Based on the previous conversation we just had I can't rely on your interpretation in regards to nuance of exact wording and context. The sort of things that are important in English.

Was it better when it still had Chicks but also referenced something they're no longer proud of?

Have Hayseed Dixie changed their name yet?

Wait, is "chick" derogatory? My assumption is that could be seen as a bit flippant if used towards someone you don't know, but can be fine with an expressed intention of not being objectifying. Kind of like the feminine version of "dude".

Like people use the term "chick flick" to refer to the type of movies that women like, and it doesn't mean you are using it negatively unless you look down on movies made for women, which I guess a good amount of people do. I would have thought the word entered the lexicon beyond how it used to be seen, with the proviso that a woman has the right to not be referred to as such, that it had been partially reclaimed. Just like "dude", where a man could be asked not to be called one.

Strange that you should ask instead of looking at the video which you provided the link to (transcribed as close as possible to words used, but some barely begun sentences removed as they contained nothing coherent or of impact to what was said - starts at 2:43 in the video should you wish to confirm):


So, to break this down into simple sections for you, as I can see this will be needed:
Starts with an observation:

Paraphrases\quotes from source material:

Statement of disbelief that anyone could find anything in common between the 2 terms:

Obligatory strawman to deflect from the dawning realization that it is correct but that he is unwilling to acknowledge this:

A moment of clarity, lost in the void of denialism:


So from this, the best we can get is "The implication of that language there is that you're inherently agreeing with racists if you have terms that classify non-white people.", which is an attempt to deny (or deflect from) a commonality between the 2 terms. Of course, maybe he was trying to obfuscate and "hide" the link in order to prevent his delicate audience from realizing the truth, I suppose...He certainly does his best to skirt around or hide that inconvenient truth if he actually does see it.

You do realise that it isn't THAT hard to research this yourself, and then provide a rebuttal to a claim, rather than ask the person you are disagreeing with to do your job?

There's folks who deem it derogatory, I'm not really one of them but that wasn't the element I was prioritizing. Even if the name is still problematic, it's improved. It was either that or make a reference to their friend Richard Crompton and rename the band The Dick C. Chicks.

Indeed.




It isn't a strawman, the video being discussed is literally called "When Woke and Racists Actually Agree", the video is saying that calling someone a "colored person" and a "person of color" is the same thing, that is someone is racist for having terms that classify people who are not white. The argument could not possibly be saying the terms are the same just because they involve the same words, otherwise there is the further argument that something like "crime book" and "book crime" are the same thing. This one could infer the problem if anyone use the word black to refer to a person you are using it in the same way that a racist would.




Yeah, race-blind "enlightened" centrism is not the only way to not be racist, in fact such stances of being race-blind can ignore real issues caused by race that can still exist. Such as being so sure that people of every race are treated equally in hiring, when the data is quite clear that the same resumes are more likely to be turned down if they have a black sounding name, let alone in interviews. Even people who have who at face and think that they are being race blind, can in fact be affected by subconscious racial bias, and taking the centrist version of race-blindness can act as putting your head in the sand to recognizing yours and other people's subconscious bias.

It was why so many people, especially of the center, were so sure racial equality had been reached in America, that they were confused to people claiming that they had been discriminated by the police for being black. Intersectionality takes into account the different experiences of people of different race, it is not the same thing as racism.




I thought that it would be better to get the part you claim there is the contradiction rather than go through the 30 minute video myself and try and guess what you are talking about.

And where is the part where Vaush said that the two terms have nothing in common with each other? Your entire claim? He even said that they are both used to classify non-white people, the thing you said that he did not. You are using him saying that using either of the terms is agreeing with using the other just because they refer to the same group, and extracting that he is saying that there is no commonality between the terms. He literally said that there is a commonality.

I am starting to think that your interpretation of language says more about what you think rather than the subject's.

As a 25yr old brainless male the term Dix - ie - chicks mean't something I was interested to do them rather than what they were called

No: as stated in the video, it was about comparing 2 SPECIFIC terms which covered the same portion of the human race.



AND here you move the goalposts...

To simplify, as this is obviously required:
Do you agree that the terms used in the video ("coloured people" and "People of colour"), about which the discussion in centered, relate to the same people?

"Black" as used in these settings would refer to a single "race"\group, which is a different thing to a term designed to include all people not of one race.



Laziness, coupled with an indication of a probable dislike of the presenter, given you were unwilling to take the effort to do any research yourself...The first leads to a poor impression of your belief in your side of the debate, while the latter is entirely understandable, given the fact that the presenter exhibits such obvious bias.



I took the entire section from where he stopped the video and described the remark up until the point where he started on the next section. At no point does he agree the terms are the same, as outlined in the previous post



An entirely noble endeavour, and I look forward to seeing the results one day.

Yes, I agree that they do relate in prescribing the same group, as does Vaush. He meant exactly that when he said:
"So that's a really nice little dig right there. "People of color and coloured people are the same thing". "As long as we're both classifying them". The implication of that language there is that you're inherently agreeing with racists if you have terms that classify non-white people."




Good thing he never said that saying someone is black is the same as referring to all people not a race. He made comparison to the implication to if using words that group people together, both in the way that racists and wokes use it, then similarly that would apply to saying something is black, since both a racist and woke person would both use it to describe a group.




I do have other things to do, but I also rightfully assumed that I would not understand what part you are referring to, because I would not have understood that it was the part just by what you said.




But the terms are not the same. Do you really think that despite referring to the same group, that calling someone a "colored person" is the same thing as calling them a "person of color"? You don't think on of those is more likely to come across as offensive? But even saying that they are not the same does not mean the same thing as saying that they have nothing in common, which was your claim. We can go back to your post and read what you wrote, and it was not claiming that Vaush thinks the two terms "are not the same" you said "According to Vaush, these 2 terms have nothing in common". Stop moving the goalpost and back up that claim.




That seems like a personal attack. Can't you have a civil discussion without breaking forum rules?

Appologies if you felt any of this was an attack: It was intended to be sarcastic (maybe doesn't translate into text) as well as an observation of the impression I have received from your frequent "re-framing" of a question I have just answered in order to avoid accknowledging that the answer to the previous question had been answered (The fact you lacked the capacity to research something you accused me of lying about also did not help, by the way).

In order to avoid further potential misunderstandings of what I type on the site, it's probably safest if you don't bother replying to me in future.

And with that out of the way:

I have not reframed anything, I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that Vaush said that the two terms have nothing in common, when your follow up explanation even included Vaush saying that they are both used to refer to the same group. Just because you pretend that you have already answered it, doesn't mean that it has been.

This was your key example of how someone like Vaush lacks objective reasoning, but it has only shown that you displaying a high degree of subjectivity in interpreting his points. Ironically falling to the exact complaints in regards to understanding Vaush as you levy that he has to the video that you started this topic with.

"Chick flick" often implies a specific type of movie lacking substance. I do know so much about today's usage but calling a female "chick" was often used in lieu of the person's name. Offensive in a microaggression type of way.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 20 Aug 2020, 11:44 am, edited 3 times in total.

What part of

did you have difficulty in understanding?

A chick flick has no less implied substance than an action movie. For one to then see a chick flick as being inherently lesser to an action movie would be to see femininity as being lesser than masculinity.

I am not going to just call some woman a chick, but neither am I going to see a woman as being self depreciating to refer to herself one, or derogatory to other women to calling them such.

Which pretty much means that you don't want to have to defend your statements and accusations that I call you out on.

But I am not misunderstanding what you are typing, instead I think that what you have been typing shows some missunderstanding of the topics at hand. Since you can't stand criticism of "enlightened centrist" comedy, and have to instead interpret it as lacking objectivity.

Your only complaint against Thought Slime was that you didn't like the whole slime and sewer aesthetic, and you did not get any of the humor because you could only identify an intention of getting laughs at the presenter and not what he is trying to present. I guess not understanding that presenting himself as absurd acts to highlight the absurdity of the topic discussed, perhaps because objectively see how absurd the idea that a woke person and a racist supposedly agreeing on these things actually is, or that a woke person would even hold the opinions presented, because it matches your strawman idea of what woke people believe.