Alright

Subject: Alright
Author: Ozzielot
Posted on: 2020-07-12 17:42:43 UTC

1) That's good that they do that. Whether you do or don't end up doing those sort of things, I'm not going to criticize you for it.

2) Getting information from different sources is good.

3) Disagreements on things like politics; good ways to teach people not to be racist; whether phrases such as "not all white people, but most", "white silence is violence" are productive or even necessary to help the Black community; etcetera.

4) I'd say you just judge people by their character and not their skin color anyway. Because judging people by their skin color is bad even without that kind of system existing.

Also, as long as this "conditioning" isn't the kind that turns people into mindless zombies, doesn't involve a mind-control weapon that strips people of their free will, involve linking them into some sort of hivemind, or involve villains threatening people literally to "be racist or die", people can break that "conditioning" either by themselves or with help from others. It may end up being difficult and it may take a long time, but I'd like to think it's possible.

5) That doesn't really answer my question, but I'm not going to push it.

As for what I think is the definition of racism (or rather the definition I go by the most), it's simply discrimination or prejudice based on race. If I want to specify racism on an institutional or systemic level, I'd use the terms institutional racism or systemic racism, respectively.

I asked the question because sometimes people have different definitions of the same word. There is a definition of racism that, IIRC, is summed up as "Racism = Power + Privilege", which as a result excludes white people as being victims of racism (I do not mean institutionalized racism or systemic racism) even as a possibility, or excludes non-white people as perpetrators of racism. There are some people who act as though that is the only true definition of racism, even disregarding the other definitions.

I also phrased the question that way to avoid a "just google the answer" response because we could come to different conclusions about the definitions. At least if we clear it up here, the conversation will become more coherent, even if it's a just little bit.

Thanks for being patient with me.

--Ozzielot

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

On discussions of religion, jokes, and comfort. by Cicada on 2020-06-26 06:10:04 UTC Serious business Reply

We've had some discussions on the Discord about religion and the types of comments made about it. The issue at hand is mostly when, if at all, joking about religion is okay.

On one hand, making people feel unwelcome is never something we want to do. It's really easy to make people feel insulted with topics like religion, and insulting entire groups of people is obviously unacceptable.

On the other hand, discussion of serious topics is allowed. People on the server have both criticisms of Christianity and jokes they want to make. We've made jokes about politics and other serious topics before, so it is ok to do the same with religion? Part of the argument I've seen made and have made myself is that jokes about religious topics can be pretty cathartic if the person in question has had bad experiences with it.

So my main goal with this thread is to ask: is it possible to be non-alienating and sufficiently respectful while making jokes about something? How can a topic like this be discussed/joked about without making people uncomfortable?

I am somewhat out of my depth here. Thus, the thread. Apologies for the brevity of my summary.

I think it is possible to make jokes about religion without offending anyone. by ClaireBook1 on 2021-08-18 17:47:27 UTC Reply

I am a Christian, and in my opinion, I don't mind it too much if people make jokes about Christianity. I like puns especially, which may be because my church's priest makes puns constantly.
To map out an extreme by Tomash on 2020-07-06 04:14:46 UTC Reply

As far as I'm concerned, we're very much not a space for the stereotypical Reddit atheist "haha magic sky daddy" type stuff, that is, jokes that are trying to call (some particular) religious belief stupid, implicitly attack people for following some religion, and so on. That's one example of the sort of being a pointlessly offensive jerk that's not wanted in PPC spaces and is just plain rude besides.

(Nesh and Moons have made pretty good points about the general subject and the difference between religion as oppressive social force and religion on a personal level,relative power, and so on, so I'm not going to try to rehash them, but I'd like to sign on to than general pile of conversation.)

Dunno what to say really, but yee. by OrangeFox on 2020-07-08 16:14:30 UTC Reply

Agree with this very much.

A few thoughts. by Neshomeh on 2020-06-27 01:18:27 UTC Reply
This sort of thing is always heavily nuanced and dependent on circumstances and the social mores of the group you're in, but consider:
1. Punch up, not down. Making fun of groups with all the social and political power is probably okay. Making fun of groups that are historically marginalized and disenfranchised is not okay.
2. Do not make fun of individual people. Treat people how you want to be treated (i.e., with civility), especially if you disagree with them, so as not to become them. Individual people's genuinely held beliefs are to be respected. (Actions or statuses quo they use those beliefs to rationalize, however, may be another story.)
3. No one has a right to be perfectly comfortable all the time. We will all be confronted with things* that challenge us from time to time. Learning to deal with those things is how we grow. If you are a member of one or more of those groups with all the social and political power and you find yourself getting offended at jokes about said group(s), stop to consider why you are offended. Is it, perhaps, because the joke is challenging you to face up to an uncomfortable truth about yourself or people you identify with? What can you do to get on the right side of the issue while owning your identity?
  
  * Note that I do not mean this to include heavy topics of the sort mentioned in Article 3 of our Constitution. Follow the Constitution and always discuss those topics with sensitivity.
4. I do my venting in private, among friends I trust to tell the difference between me venting and me expressing my true values. My feelings may (or may not!) be valid, but I don't have to spew them without regard for whether they may hurt someone.
That's my hot take.

~Neshomeh

So my general understanding is... by Cicada on 2020-06-29 21:22:55 UTC Reply

It's mostly alright to make whatever jokes or discuss whatever problems, but just be aware that you'll be held accountable based on how this comes off, so be extra careful not to insult anyone? That makes a lot of sense to me.
About those points by Ozzielot on 2020-06-27 18:44:14 UTC Edited Reply
1. I generally agree, especially with the last statement. Though for the second statement, those groups that are okay to punch up, races aren't included in that list, right?
2. Agreed.
3. Could you name a few examples of the kind of jokes you mean?

1 & 3 by Neshomeh on 2020-06-28 06:42:20 UTC Reply

As far as I'm concerned, speaking as a white person in Western civilization, making fun of white people is fine, especially middle- to upper-class white people. For an example, take "Karen," the archtype of a middle-aged white woman who will call the cops on a Black person for mildly inconveniencing her in some trivial way and probably wants to speak to your manager, too. Please make fun of the Karens. The behavior being called out by Karen jokes is despicable and deserving of scorn. We should all strive not to be a Karen.

Making fun of people who are historically oppressed by white people is not fine. (Unless you are those people; making fun of your own group is not at issue here.)

Again, though, this is all incredibly nuanced. Knowing what's appropriate and what's not in any given context requires historical, social, and situational awareness. When in doubt, just don't make the joke.

~Neshomeh

Thanks for answering by Ozzielot on 2020-06-28 18:52:51 UTC Reply

Personally, I feel that making exceptions of which races are fine to make jokes about defeats the point in not discriminating by race. Not in a "I'll joke about every race!" way but in a "I'm not going to joke about any race" way. Also, I'm a bit concerned you mentioned the Karens specifically being white as though their race was relevant and as though there aren't Karens who aren't white.

This isn't to say that making fun of Karens is anywhere close to the level of jokes directed at people who aren't white, just to say setting those kind of double standards (more specifically exceptions) is a bad habit I personally think we should avoid.

If everyone's making fun of Karens, I'd only make fun of them for their behaviour, not because most of them are white.

You make a good point. by Neshomeh on 2020-06-29 05:13:47 UTC Reply

(For the record, this is veering off the topic of what jokes are appropriate in PPC areas. I'm not intending this as a suggestion for Board/Discord policy, just trying to explain my perspective in general.)

So, yes: the behavior of Karens, not the race of Karens, is the problem.

However, I don't think you can divorce the matter of race from the behavior in this case. The fact of white supremacy in this country is what allows Karens to think they can get away with victimizing Black people. If there are non-white Karens and they're doing the same thing, they're benefiting from the same systems of oppression, so I can't say that I mind lumping them in.

Being white doesn't make you a bad person, but taking advantage of the privilege afforded to you by whiteness in order to harm others does. As the behavior of Karens is symptomatic of the larger problem of white supremacy, so I believe the race of Karens is absolutely relevant.

Ultimately, I feel the distinction between making fun of white people and making fun of others lies in the fact that whiteness in this country is used as a means of determining who holds power and authority. I believe those who hold power must be subject to criticism, including ridicule, to prevent them from wielding their power unchecked. This is why freedom of speech and freedom of the press are so important—they're supposed to help guard us from tyranny. As things stand now, whiteness is used as a determiner for who is allowed to hold power. As long as that's the case, and as long as white people are disproportionately advantaged while other people are disproportionately disadvantaged, then I believe white people can suck it up and take their lumps when jokes are made about whites.

^ See? Nuance. Nuance means there may be exceptions to the general rule depending upon circumstances.

Incidentally, if anyone is inclined to cry "not all white people!" here... Everybody knows it's not all white people. But it is most of us, if only through complacency and silence. I include myself in this. I am often complacent in my privilege, and I could do more to stand up for others. When I do nothing, I am part of the problem. But, recognizing the ugly truth behind the jokes is one small way I'm trying to be better, and sharing these thoughts where they may have some impact is another.

~Neshomeh

Alright so by Ozzielot on 2020-06-30 14:00:52 UTC Reply

It's good you want to help people who have been disadvantaged, though I feel that this mindset you have about white people such as yourself isn't healthy. Acknowledging that historically, there have been white people who have oppressed non-white people; asking white people to help out non-white people when they need it; thinking progress needs to be made to make the world a better place; holding people who hold power accountable? That's one thing. This attitude that looks to me like a hyperfocus on a person's race (especially when you use a term like "whiteness" and display what I think looks like a sort of saviour complex tied to your race) I feel is another thing.

If you want to think that way about your race, you do you. I am not interested in having that sort of mindset.

(On the topic of Karens, there are no "if"s on whether non-white Karens and white victims of Karens exist. They're both are a minority, but they do exist and so do the white victims.)

I calls it like I sees it. by Neshomeh on 2020-06-30 15:20:38 UTC Reply

I'm not going to try to change your view, but I'm not sure you've understood what mine actually is. I'm a little offended at being accused of having a savior complex. We're having a polite conversation. This is the only effort I'm making as a would-be activist right now. Compared to the lengths others are going to in living the social justice values I share, it feels pretty pathetic to me, so being accused of going too far feels unpleasantly ironic. Yet, I am doing the best I can at this time.

To clarify: My opinion on this issue is informed by what I'm hearing from the larger discourse around me. When I hear Black voices saying things like "white silence is violence," I believe it is incumbent upon me to hear and respond. This isn't me forcing my ideas of help on others whether or not it's what they've asked for, as a "white savior" does; this is me listening to what others say they need from people like me and doing my best to accommodate, even if it's in very small ways such as this.

I'm not ashamed of being what I am—I didn't choose it any more than anyone else, after all—but admitting that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it. If I can't even acknowledge being a small, incidental component of a larger systemic problem, how am I ever supposed to take the correct steps to improve?

All this was interpreted correctly:

> Acknowledging that historically, there have been white people who have oppressed non-white people; asking white people to help out non-white people when they need it; thinking progress needs to be made to make the world a better place; holding people who hold power accountable

I hope I've made myself more clear.

~Neshomeh

I feel like there's a sort of language barrier here by Ozzielot on 2020-07-01 02:50:53 UTC Edited Reply

I'm not sure we're on the same page, so just to make as few assumptions as possible, I'm going to ask some questions, if that's okay with you.
1. In reference to: "Compared to the lengths others are going to in living the social justice values I share, it feels pretty pathetic to me, so being accused of going too far feels unpleasantly ironic. "

What are the lengths the others going for their social justice value?

2."To clarify: My opinion on this issue is informed by what I'm hearing from the larger discourse around me. When I hear Black voices saying things like "white silence is violence," I believe it is incumbent upon me to hear and respond. "

By "larger discourse", do you mean the internet or in real life? Like, do you read articles, forum posts, tumblr, or do you chat with them in person (or through zoom or w/e)?

3. More specifically on the Black voices, do you hear ideas and opinions that are different from each other? Such as how they might even disagree with each other greatly?

4. What do you think of judging people by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin?

5. What do you think is the definition of racism? I'm asking more for your opinion rather than what's on Google.

It occurred to me just recently that I think I used the phrase "x is one thing, y is another thing" incorrectly. It probably came across as "There's helping people WHICH YOU AREN'T DOING!!!1!" rather than acknowledging that while you are trying to do good, I just don't agree with what I viewed as the hyperfocus on your race. Another thing was lumping together "you wanting to help" with that "hyperfocus" by talking about a vague "mindset". I apologize for the confusion that came from my poor phrasing.

As for the saviour complex accusation I made, it was inconsiderate of me to accuse you of having one and to phrase it the way I did, so I apologize for that as well.

Haven't had the spoons for this for a while, but let's see... by Neshomeh on 2020-07-10 02:07:02 UTC Reply
I appreciate your apology. Thanks.

Some of those questions are pretty big ones that properly deserve books or at least essays dedicated to answering them. On the understanding that I cannot possibly cover every aspect of my beliefs or thought process in a Board post, though, I'll try to sum up.
1. Peaceful protest, active political campaigning, that sort of thing.
2. All of the above, piecemeal. Over the years, I have learned things from books, from news sources, from magazine articles, from newsletters I receive, from people of color in my church community, from friends more involved than I am, from posts shared around the Internet, from the protest signs people write, from random people who live in my city, from the different ways different people live in my city and others I know, from the literal writing on the wall or the sidewalk... the learning never stops.
3. Let me answer a question with a question: Disagreeing on what point(s), specifically?
4. That's a great idea. How shall we do that without first acknowledging that we live in a system that conditions us all not to?
5. This question in particular feels like a trap, because it is impossible to answer fully, but assuming good faith here: One facet of racism, and the one I'm mostly concerned with in this discussion, is the persistence of systems designed to afford privilege to people of one race while disadvantaging people of another race. There can be no question that America was built upon such systems and that they persist in new forms today; arguing otherwise is like arguing that climate change isn't real. (I.e., people do it, but they're either naive/ignorant or deliberately profiting from it.)
~Neshomeh

Alright by Ozzielot on 2020-07-12 17:42:43 UTC Reply

1) That's good that they do that. Whether you do or don't end up doing those sort of things, I'm not going to criticize you for it.

2) Getting information from different sources is good.

3) Disagreements on things like politics; good ways to teach people not to be racist; whether phrases such as "not all white people, but most", "white silence is violence" are productive or even necessary to help the Black community; etcetera.

4) I'd say you just judge people by their character and not their skin color anyway. Because judging people by their skin color is bad even without that kind of system existing.

Also, as long as this "conditioning" isn't the kind that turns people into mindless zombies, doesn't involve a mind-control weapon that strips people of their free will, involve linking them into some sort of hivemind, or involve villains threatening people literally to "be racist or die", people can break that "conditioning" either by themselves or with help from others. It may end up being difficult and it may take a long time, but I'd like to think it's possible.

5) That doesn't really answer my question, but I'm not going to push it.

As for what I think is the definition of racism (or rather the definition I go by the most), it's simply discrimination or prejudice based on race. If I want to specify racism on an institutional or systemic level, I'd use the terms institutional racism or systemic racism, respectively.

I asked the question because sometimes people have different definitions of the same word. There is a definition of racism that, IIRC, is summed up as "Racism = Power + Privilege", which as a result excludes white people as being victims of racism (I do not mean institutionalized racism or systemic racism) even as a possibility, or excludes non-white people as perpetrators of racism. There are some people who act as though that is the only true definition of racism, even disregarding the other definitions.

I also phrased the question that way to avoid a "just google the answer" response because we could come to different conclusions about the definitions. At least if we clear it up here, the conversation will become more coherent, even if it's a just little bit.

Thanks for being patient with me.

--Ozzielot

The "simple" definition by Neshomeh on 2020-07-13 16:19:28 UTC Reply

Yeah, I was taught that one, too. It's certainly one facet of racism, and that understanding of it worked well enough on its own when I was growing up in my mostly white, middle-class city, going to high school with maybe three black kids in the whole place.

Would you allow me to challenge the validity of that definition as the most relevant one for you, as I had it challenged for me?

Let me introduce a hypothetical situation that actually happens all the time: a young black man is arrested and goes to prison for possession of drugs. How certain are you that he does or does not deserve it?

This is absolutely a trap. I think you'll automatically come to the "simple" conclusion that anyone who breaks the law is a criminal and therefore deserves their punishment, regardless of skin color, because it's the conclusion I would have come to when I might have also been bothered about "reverse racism" of black people against white people. Am I right? If so, think carefully, and notice what you think, and consider why. If I'm wrong, then again, think carefully, and notice what you think, and consider why. This is relevant to points 4 and 5 both.

Regarding "reverse racism": I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I'm saying it's not equivalent. Black people on the whole have legitimate reasons to hold deep prejudice against white people on the whole, seeing as we're the ones who did the enslaving and the Jim Crow and the war on drugs and etc., on through today. I am therefore not offended by it on the whole. I obviously don't care to have anyone treat me like crap in person, but that's not usually a problem. Most people make nice in public, regardless of what they think in private. Especially if they believe the system will come down on them like a ton of bricks if they don't.

Oh, and re. point 3: I know those conversations take place in the Black community/ies, as they do in all communities. When the messages that emerge from those conversations are so strong they form a movement that sweeps the country, I cannot in good conscience ignore them. Nitpicking the words used to demand justice as an excuse not to address the need for justice is another form of oppression. This is something I've learned from the LGBTQ+ community hereabouts as well as from people of color.

~Neshomeh

I had a look at your post. by Ozzielot on 2020-07-13 19:23:38 UTC Edited Reply

I'm seeing a lot of assumptions about what I think and not necessarily correct ones. I was afraid I would end up making those kind of assumptions, so I asked you questions instead. Or at least, tried to ask rather than assume.

Do you want to continue this conversation/debate? I am willing to drop it if you ask.

--Ozzielot

Actually, I'm going to end this conversation here. by Ozzielot on 2020-07-15 01:59:57 UTC Edited Reply

At the rate we're going, we're going to be wasting each other's time talking at each other, using so many spoons that we don't use any of them to actually try to understand or even ask what we're trying to say and then end up getting so angry we read things that aren't there. I have better uses of my time and probably you have better uses of your time.

As for anything else, the only thing I will address is related to the answer you gave about your definition of racism. I did not look in a dictionary for the word facet (which according to merriam-webster.com is "any of the definable aspects that make up a subject (as of contemplation) or an object (as of consideration) "), so I wrongly assumed you didn't answer my question. I apologize for that.

End of conversation.

Okay. Final post. by Neshomeh on 2020-07-16 16:54:59 UTC Reply

I was taking a challenging stance deliberately, but I didn't mean to be hostile, so I'm sorry if I made you feel attacked.

I hope I have provoked more thought than anger, and that others may have benefited from watching the exchange.

~Neshomeh

Hear, Hear! by SMF on 2020-06-27 13:56:40 UTC Reply

Seconding all of this. ^

My take by Four Moons Watching on 2020-06-26 12:06:23 UTC Reply

As a frequent joker about christianity, I adhere to the same general rule as "the straights are at it again" jokes: there is a difference between the majority, who are just trying to live their lives, and The Majority(tm), who are nffholes about it. Said distinction is implicit in jokes at the expense of The Majority(tm), and no offense to the majority is intended. (I hope that makes some kind of sense, I just woke up.)

If I was ever unclear about this I really do apologize.

I also second this (nm) by QuantumMelody29 on 2020-06-29 07:19:25 UTC Reply
I second this. by Damian Thorne on 2020-06-26 23:45:09 UTC Reply

There are some among the religious community who feel that their religion enables them to lord it over everyone else and create a self-centered morality system where everything they disagree with is the Devil, when closer examination reveals that their own scriptures contradict them on these matters. With regards to these people, we cannot be sure if we are making the jokes or the jokes are making themselves.

However, actual attacks on or jokes about the religion itself are never okay. Not just from the perspective of not belittling others' beliefs, but also because I at least take this seriously, and would like you to show some respect for that.
Query: by Huinesoron on 2020-06-26 12:24:44 UTC Reply

When you say "the m/Majority", do you mean "the members of a majority demographic group" (eg, Protestant Christians in the United States), or do you mean "the majority of members of a demographic group" (eg, 12,000 of the 15,000 Zoroastrians in the United States)? I feel like your comment can be read either way, with different implications to each.

hS

The first thing you said. (nm) by Four Moons Watching on 2020-06-26 13:24:20 UTC Reply