Everything is racist.

[Metaphor]

That is not what the article claims. It claims that racists use that as ploy to hide their racism, not that the claim is necessarily racist.

The author does not allow for non-racist criticisms of culture and religion:

Hating and fearing other people because of their culture or religion and claiming that is different to racism shows a totally elementary and outdated notion of what race means.

It seems that the only element of cultural difference Australians can agree to tolerate is food (as long as it's not Halal) - all else must be erased and replaced with white, Christian Aussie values and practices. Well sorry, but that's just racist.

No one in that article made that claim. From what I can tell, the critics said it was insensitive or wrong, not racist.

Then Hamad ought not have her headline be "When 'Timeless' Fantasies Turn Out To Be Incredibly Racist'. If the fantasy (the video) isn't racist, what does that headline mean?

And if the standard defence is that Hamad doesn't write her own clickbaity headline, she ought to clarify that in the article.

Again, this is not what the article claimed (although it is the closest summary in this OP). I believe the argument that author makes is that ethnic food served out of context is a form of cultural appropriation.

There's no such thing as "ethnic" food, or rather, if there is, every food has an ethnicity, just like everyone has an accent.

I wonder if the author thinks that Chinese people eating KFC is cultural appropriation, or if she herself meditates on the history of the hamburger or hot dog before she takes a bite.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Naw, go online and you'll find that racists are generally the ones complaining about racism.

I hate Obama, but I guess that means I must be racist.

They bring it up all the fucking time.

According to your logic Athena would be the biggest racist on this forum.

Could you please cite some posts (granted, it'd be to the FRDB and IIDB boards) to the threads she started or the posts she wrote going on about how see couldn't stand that "White Cracker in the White House"?

And, bringing up race and race relations as a subject for discussion isn't the same as the "I hate Obama, but I guess that means I must be a racist" retort. So, by my logic, no, it doesn't mean Athena is the biggest racist.

 

[Metaphor]

And the victims of racism, of course.

Naw, go online and you'll find that racists are generally the ones complaining about racism.

I hate Obama, but I guess that means I must be racist.

They bring it up all the fucking time.

Technically, they're bringing up 'accusations of racism', not 'racism.'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Naw, go online and you'll find that racists are generally the ones complaining about racism.

I hate Obama, but I guess that means I must be racist.

They bring it up all the fucking time.

Technically, they're bringing up 'accusations of racism', not 'racism.'

You see, that is the thing. No one is accusing them of racism, they bring it up first and completely needlessly. It is like saying:

I have blacks for friends, but one thing that bothers me about blacks...

It is being used as some sort of shield to protect oneself in an argument, I can't be a racist if I bring up racism first!. How many times have the few conservatives here been accused of racism because of criticism of Obama?

 

[laughing dog]

The author does not allow for non-racist criticisms of culture and religion:

Hating and fearing other people because of their culture or religion and claiming that is different to racism shows a totally elementary and outdated notion of what race means.

It seems that the only element of cultural difference Australians can agree to tolerate is food (as long as it's not Halal) - all else must be erased and replaced with white, Christian Aussie values and practices. Well sorry, but that's just racist.

No one in that article made that claim. From what I can tell, the critics said it was insensitive or wrong, not racist.

IMO, criticism of X does not require hatred or fear of X, so I think your characterization is misplaced.

Then Hamad ought not have her headline be "When 'Timeless' Fantasies Turn Out To Be Incredibly Racist'. If the fantasy (the video) isn't racist, what does that headline mean?

Well, if it means the video is racist that does not mean Taylor Swift is racist, unless you think Taylor Swift is a video.

And if the standard defence is that Hamad doesn't write her own clickbaity headline, she ought to clarify that in the article.

Why? Suppose the headline which was written by someone else came after the article?

There's no such thing as "ethnic" food, or rather, if there is, every food has an ethnicity, just like everyone has an accent.

The term "ethnic food" is well understood in the USA. I suspect it is elsewhere. It seems to me that you insist in taking offense at imagined slights.

 

[Metaphor]

IMO, criticism of X does not require hatred or fear of X, so I think your characterization is misplaced.

How does it matter if hatred and fear are involved? I hate and fear the culture of ISIS, and I am critical of it. That doesn't make me racist.

Well, if it means the video is racist that does not mean Taylor Swift is racist, unless you think Taylor Swift is a video.

My sentence, 'Taylor Swift is racist', was meant to be punchy, and it did not misrepresent the spirit of Hamad's headline and article. I have a problem with Hamad's entire thesis. For example, she criticised the First Fleet drama on the basis that there were no Indigenous people in it. She is bang on when she says 'to include them means a different story would have to be told'. Of course that's true. The film makers wanted to tell the story they told, not some other story that Hamad wants to see. If Hamad wants to see that story, she can write and produce and direct her own film.

Hamad is offended by Swift's video, when Swift's video is such a benign fantasy it's like being offended by the one-sided portrayal of Balrog in The Lord of the Rings.

Why? Suppose the headline which was written by someone else came after the article?

So, Hamad doesn't get to see the headline or change her article after someone else puts their title on her work? Not that the headline is inconsistent with the nonsense in the article, mind.

The term "ethnic food" is well understood in the USA. I suspect it is elsewhere. It seems to me that you insist in taking offense at imagined slights.

I didn't imagine the author saying that white people eating Chinese food was cultural appropriation. She says it quite plainly.

And cultural appropriation is bad and wrong. It can be upgraded to the neutral (good?) 'cultural exchange' if you eat it after having received a sermon on its cultural context.

I guess some people never give up religion. They just invent new dogmas and tests of faith, and they're just as willing to imagine sins and then chastise you for them.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

The author does not allow for non-racist criticisms of culture and religion:

Hating and fearing other people because of their culture or religion and claiming that is different to racism shows a totally elementary and outdated notion of what race means.

It seems that the only element of cultural difference Australians can agree to tolerate is food (as long as it's not Halal) - all else must be erased and replaced with white, Christian Aussie values and practices. Well sorry, but that's just racist.

No one in that article made that claim. From what I can tell, the critics said it was insensitive or wrong, not racist.

Then Hamad ought not have her headline be "When 'Timeless' Fantasies Turn Out To Be Incredibly Racist'. If the fantasy (the video) isn't racist, what does that headline mean?

And if the standard defence is that Hamad doesn't write her own clickbaity headline, she ought to clarify that in the article.

Again, this is not what the article claimed (although it is the closest summary in this OP). I believe the argument that author makes is that ethnic food served out of context is a form of cultural appropriation.

There's no such thing as "ethnic" food, or rather, if there is, every food has an ethnicity, just like everyone has an accent.

I wonder if the author thinks that Chinese people eating KFC is cultural appropriation, or if she herself meditates on the history of the hamburger or hot dog before she takes a bite.

I was thinking along the same lines. I mean, what the fuck is "ethnic food" supposed to be anyway.

I guess maybe she only eats a hamburger or a hotdog in a crowded park on the 4th July?

Or if I want to eat sushi I have to... what? I guess first I would need some kind of bachelor's degree in Japanese history. But what part of Japanese history? What if I only intensely studied 19th century Japan? Would I be qualified then? Would I have to actually go to Japan? Holy shit, do I need to learn how to speak Japanese too? Of course I'll have to learn it because how can I possibly acknowledge my deep seated understanding and appreciation to the Japanese people regarding their culture if I try to communicate with them in English.

God, I'm such a fucking asshole! I'm so sorry. I didn't know that enjoying food carried such a heavy responsibility. I will try to do better.

Or maybe I can just head over to a local sushi bar, eat sushi, and drink some beer. Yeah, I'll just do that instead.

 

[laughing dog]

How does it matter if hatred and fear are involved? I hate and fear the culture of ISIS, and I am critical of it. That doesn't make me racist.

The argument presented in the article says that racists use hatred and fear of a culture or religion to hide their racism. That does not mean that fear or hatred of a culture is racist.

My sentence, 'Taylor Swift is racist', was meant to be punchy, and it did not misrepresent the spirit of Hamad's headline and article. I have a problem with Hamad's entire thesis. For example, she criticised the First Fleet drama on the basis that there were no Indigenous people in it. She is bang on when she says 'to include them means a different story would have to be told'. Of course that's true. The film makers wanted to tell the story they told, not some other story that Hamad wants to see. If Hamad wants to see that story, she can write and produce and direct her own film.

Hamad is offended by Swift's video, when Swift's video is such a benign fantasy it's like being offended by the one-sided portrayal of Balrog in The Lord of the Rings.

I would have no idea, since I have no interest in Taylor Swift.

So, Hamad doesn't get to see the headline or change her article after someone else puts their title on her work? Not that the headline is inconsistent with the nonsense in the article, mind.

The headline is inconsistent. I don't know if she gets to see it or not. Neither do you.

I didn't imagine the author saying that white people eating Chinese food was cultural appropriation. She says it quite plainly.

Funny, I used a find function and could not locate anywhere in the article where she says white people eating Chinese food was cultural appropriation. Perhaps you could reproduce it.

And cultural appropriation is bad and wrong. It can be upgraded to the neutral (good?) 'cultural exchange' if you eat it after having received a sermon on its cultural context.

That is not what she argued.

I guess some people never give up religion. They just invent new dogmas and tests of faith, and they're just as willing to imagine sins and then chastise you for them.

I agree that there are many people who take offense over trivial and non-existent transgressions.

 

[Bronzeage]

How many times has a pro-booing commentator come out this week saying the booing isn't racist because people are just fed up with Goodes "displaying his Indigenous heritage" and they find his "war dance" confronting? It's incredible.

If a war dance is not "confronting", what's the point?

 

[bilby]

Booing sportsmen who are not Paul Gallen is unAustralian.

 

[Metaphor]

The argument presented in the article says that racists use hatred and fear of a culture or religion to hide their racism. That does not mean that fear or hatred of a culture is racist.

No, that isn't the argument she's making. She is saying criticising a culture is racist.

Funny, I used a find function and could not locate anywhere in the article where she says white people eating Chinese food was cultural appropriation. Perhaps you could reproduce it.

She does not say those words verbatim, which is why I didn't put quotes around it as if she did. But she talks about the 'sting' of cultural appropriation by white people.

That is not what she argued.

She did not explicitly say cultural appropriation was bad, it's just taken for granted that cultural appropriation is bad.

She did mention that (white) people should be aware of the context or origin of the dish they were eating. Of course, she doesn't mention giving people a literal sermon, that's my own rhetorical flourish. But of course you know that.

 

[Metaphor]

Or maybe I can just head over to a local sushi bar, eat sushi, and drink some beer. Yeah, I'll just do that instead.

There will, of course, be plenty of people willing to take your money and provide that service to you, which is why the bleatings of the appropriation police are annoying but ultimately impotent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or maybe I can just head over to a local sushi bar, eat sushi, and drink some beer. Yeah, I'll just do that instead.

There will, of course, be plenty of people willing to take your money and provide that service to you, which is why the bleatings of the appropriation police are annoying but ultimately impotent.

I don't understand the problem here. Some people will always be offended. Some people will always be offensive. Are we letting them set the standard?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I thought that article was relatively well-written.

I can't say that I agree. She seems to be writing in the hipster/trendy bubble with its own specific definitions of both "ethnic food" and "white people" that makes most of this article pretty much nonsense:

The Cantonese foods of my childhood have reappeared in trendy restaurants that fill their menus with perfectly plated fine-dining versions of our traditional cuisine. In some cases, this shift has been heartening. But in too many others, the trend has reduced staples of our culture to fleeting fetishes.

M'kay... I don't know that Happy Chef Chinese Kitchen is what I would call "Cantonse food" but it sure as hell isn't "fine dining." I'm not even sure I would call it "trendy." But they deliver till 10pm, so on movie night it's either that or pizza.

Actually, far as I can tell, white people -- really Americans in general -- have been eating at Chinese restaurants since at least the 1970s (my mother supposedly went into labor over a carton of delicious kung pao chicken three hours before my sister was born).

I suppose she's probably specifically referring to "authentic" (meaning non-Americanized) Chinese cooking of the kind that ISN'T served at a takeout kitchen. To most Americans, though, I think that's a distinction without a difference; Chinese restaurants cook food the way they do because it's cheap and efficient, not necessarily because Americans prefer it that way. The "trendy" restaurants she's complaining about are probably just those chefs who realized what ever chef in the world already knows: that replicating careful and high-quality "home cooking" in a restaurant is both delicious and expensive, and therefore you should charge an assload of money when you do it.

On the other hand, I'm rather fond of Panda Express (I hear you snickering, fuck you!). There's "cultural appropriation" and there's "fake Chinese food cooked by Mexicans and served on a paper plate."

Is there, like, some part of America that doesn't have poor people? Is that where all these writers live?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The last I especially savor because I used to ask why White people eating Chinese food wasn't 'cultural appropriation'. But now I know it is!

It is only cultural appropriation if the white person can use chopsticks better than the Chinese person who is speaking.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Disliking a culture or religion is racist.

Taylor Swift is racist.

White people eating Chinese food without being subjected to a lecture about the food's origins is cultural appropriation.

The last I especially savor because I used to ask why White people eating Chinese food wasn't 'cultural appropriation'. But now I know it is!

Since "racism" is highly immoral, the accusation is frequently used as a rhetorical weapon. But, if there is a problem, then the problem is typically not racism, even if racism is an element. There are many liberals who define "racism" such that minority groups can not possibly be racist. And, there are whites who believe that the only thing whites can do that is "racist" is dress like a white supremacist or be explicitly hostile with a racial slur. But, it is using the wrong word and the wrong concept. The problem is NOT thinking or expressing that one biological race is better than another. The problem is a racial/cultural us-vs-them mentality, and it is common to all parties, as it is a fundamental human instinct. There is no good single word to express that principle. "Racist" is used to express it, and, since the same word can mean almost anything, it leads to a lot of division, non-communication and pointless debate.

 

[ApostateAbe]

‘No Blacks’ Is Not a Sexual Preference. It’s Racism. The debate around ‘sexual racism’ is particularly heated within the gay community. Some call it preference, others call it prejudice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

‘No Blacks’ Is Not a Sexual Preference. It’s Racism. The debate around ‘sexual racism’ is particularly heated within the gay community. Some call it preference, others call it prejudice.

It depends on the reason. If someone isn't willing to make exceptions (and there are always exceptions), it'd be racism. Otherwise it can be mere preference.

 

[ApostateAbe]

‘No Blacks’ Is Not a Sexual Preference. It’s Racism. The debate around ‘sexual racism’ is particularly heated within the gay community. Some call it preference, others call it prejudice.

It depends on the reason. If someone isn't willing to make exceptions (and there are always exceptions), it'd be racism. Otherwise it can be mere preference.

The willingness to make exceptions has always existed in classical racism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It depends on the reason. If someone isn't willing to make exceptions (and there are always exceptions), it'd be racism. Otherwise it can be mere preference.

The willingness to make exceptions has always existed in classical racism.

Okay, let me restate then, if someone refuses to date blacks, that is racism.