Warbler

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

You’re colossally missing the point.

ok, you are right. Frink is not suggesting white people can’t talk about race, he suggesting white people shouldn’t talk about certain issues involving race.

So white people should argue in favor of using the n-word? Clearly they can, but they shouldn’t, right?

I suppose if they feel people should use that term, they should say so. However, I would disagree with them, and I would find the strong terms to say so.

Is my reaction to the ESPN fantasy auction the same as arguing in favor of using the N-word?

[Never mind, we’re stuck in a time loop.]

*sigh*

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

yhwx said:

Sorry, but… source?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

In other racial news…

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/15/espn-apology-fantasy-football-auction

Yikes. Great timing.

Is this really that big of a deal? They weren’t selling black people, they were doing a FANTASY auction of football players. It also included white players. According to the article you linked too, auctions are common in fantasy football.

"Auction drafts are a common part of fantasy football, and ESPN’s segments replicated an auction draft with a diverse slate of top professional football players. Without that context, we understand the optics could be portrayed as offensive, and we apologize,” ESPN said in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.

I’ve done Fantasy for many years now and this story proves that if someone does something as simple as taking something out of context, they’ll get offended real quick.

Just once I wish you guys could admit that maybe just maybe black people could have an issue with something that you guys don’t.

Just once I wish that you guys could admit that "maybe just maybe* just because some black people have an issue with something, doesn’t automatically make it a valid complaint.

Ok, good to know. Please be sure to let black people know each time what they are allowed to have an issue with, so they can stop making the same mistake of being offended.

*sigh*

Fact: People sometimes get offended at things that aren’t reasonable to be offended over.

Once again, thanks for clarifying that for black people. I’m sure they feel much better now.

Do disagree with the fact that I stated? Are you saying it never happens that someone gets offended at something that wasn’t reasonable to get offended at? That never happens???

If a black person says they are offended because Jack White won’t change his name to Jack Black, I wouldn’t consider that reasonable. If a black person says they are offended because an ESPN sketch includes something that is reminiscent of a slave auction, I’m not gonna argue. I get that it’s fantasy football (I play) and I get that white players were there too. It’s clear ESPN did not do it intentionally. But it looks bad and there’s no reason us white people should be lecturing black people for pointing that out.

I was not lecturing anyone. I was giving my opinion. White people are allowed to have opinions and say them.

Your opinion (and darthrush;s and mfm’s) is that black people should not be upset that something with at least tangential racial connotations happened. That’s a lecture, no matter how much you want to dress it up as opinion.

And this isn’t about what you are allowed to do, it’s about what you should (or in this case should not) do. You have the right to tell people to get over racial things. But you shouldn’t.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

What was your opinion again? Was it that it was ok for them to have made that commercial, or was it that black people shouldn’t be offended by it?

I think it was that people were making too much of a big deal about it.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

I think your opinion is wrong, but I don’t think you were wrong to say it.

Well Frink certainly thought I was wrong for saying it.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

You’re colossally missing the point.

ok, you are right. Frink is not suggesting white people can’t talk about race, he suggesting white people shouldn’t talk about certain issues involving race.

So white people should argue in favor of using the n-word? Clearly they can, but they shouldn’t, right?

I suppose if they feel people should use that term, they should say so. However, I would disagree with them, and I would find the strong terms to say so.

Is my reaction to the ESPN fantasy auction the same as arguing in favor of using the N-word?

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

Sorry, but… source?

Was I or was I not wrong saying my opinion on the ESPN fantasy auction?

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

Have I or anybody else say that people are wrong for merely saying their opinions?

um, yes. Both you and Frink. multiple times.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

You’re colossally missing the point.

ok, you are right. Frink is not suggesting white people can’t talk about race, he suggesting white people shouldn’t talk about certain issues involving race.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that contradiction basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I think you would agree that people can support Trump, but that they shouldn’t. Apply that concept to the conversation we’re having now.

There is a difference between disagreeing with an opinion, and thinking one shouldn’t give an opinion.

If someone saying says they support Trump, I will tell them I think they are wrong to support Trump. I will not tell them say are wrong for saying they support Trump.

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

What if the person eating the apple was lying about it being poisoned(and was only acting like they had been poisoned), for attention or to forward an agenda?

Don’t be fucking ridiculous.

but I think sometimes people lie about being offended to get attention and/or to forward an agenda.

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

I’m not at all suggesting the person eating the apple shouldn’t have an opinion of greater importance. I’m simply saying they may have something to contribute. What if the non-apple eater had never tasted apple, but happens to know the many health benefits of apples? What if he’s never had that Fuji apple the first person is eating, but he’s had golden delicious and might have some unique contribution to the broader discussion if afford in general?

I’m not suggesting that white people can’t talk about race. If so I’d be a hypocrite.

but that is exactly what Frink is suggesting.

ESPN said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ve said several things that directly indicated otherwise, but it seems like it would be a waste of time to keep repeating them over and over.

I think this then would be the point where one would say “I’m sorry for leading you to feel invalidated. It wasn’t my intent.” Instead of arguing that one didn’t actually do so.

We’re sorry that some people of color think we did something we didn’t do…

fixed.

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ve said several things that directly indicated otherwise, but it seems like it would be a waste of time to keep repeating them over and over.

I think this then would be the point where one would say “I’m sorry for leading you to feel invalidated. It wasn’t my intent.” Instead of arguing that one didn’t actually do so.

sorry, I am going post clapping pic here, because I feel that strongly about it.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.

And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

I feel there is plenty of room for multiple races, including the privileged majority, at the table of discussion. I feel like your above post was the first to truly acknowledge that.

Take Affirmative Action as an example. Minorities are not proportionally represented in certain work environments (particularly white color jobs) or in higher levels of education. So institutions might lower their standards for particular races in an effort to create a nominal representation.

But then think of the white guy with the 3.9 GPA who is not admitted to the elite school of his choice, but learns that the black gal with the 3.4 was. He might feel some resentment. Simply saying, “Oh, you’re a privileged white guy and you’ll find another school,” does not necessarily solve his feelings of disappointment or frustration. It might exacerbate feelings of resentment towards African-Americans he already held. Similarly, the 3.4 black student may not be as prepared for school and might be unable to make it through the program, owing to the challenges of attempting to make it through a school of intense standards. Perhaps this student might have had better success at a less prestigious school.

Bear in mind, this is in no way stating one race is inherently more intelligent than another. I feel this is obvious, but I worry that my words might be misinterpreted.

Back to my example, hey, we want minorities to be able to reach their dreams. Many do, in fact, come from an underprivileged environment, possibly in some urban school where the educational standards were not as high. This presents a challenge when trying to overcome the disadvantaged position of society. Lowering standards is a sort of an opportunity to get a foot up from that disadvantage. On the other hand, it could also be an opportunity for greater failure. And though the elementary education of the two students in question was not equal, will creating different standards for the same students now at the university-level somehow create equality? Probably not.

I’m not actually trying to say which is better: Affirmative Action or flat rate standards. I am trying to point out that it is a complex issue. Usually, these issues actually require people of different perspectives to find a healthy, lasting solution. Excluding whites, even whites who do not fully understand the nature of white privilege, from the discussion leads to more problems than it solves.

Affirmative Action is a much more complex (and important) issue than an ESPN commercial that might be offensive. I’m not so quick to write off anyone’s opinion on it. I’m conflicted myself.

So again you’re deciding when an issue complex enough for it to be ok for a white person to have and opinion about it and state it.

Do you think if you keep yelling “GOTCHA!” it will stick one of these times?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

It’s certainly not because I’ve been saying so, although I keep hearing that I have been for some reason.

But you have been saying so. You said that white people, especially Warbler, due to white privilege, should not have an opinion on certain non-white matters. You then said that you do believe white people can, but that basically leads one to infer that you are the judge of what they should and should not have an opinion about.

I’ve said several things that directly indicated otherwise, but it seems like it would be a waste of time to keep repeating them over and over.

You have? I must have missed that.

You have clearly said there are times when white people shouldn’t have an opinion and/or state it(fantasy auction). Yet you have an opinion and state it at times(Robert Lee). Where is the line between the two? Sure seems like you think you are the one that gets to decide that.

DominicCobb said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

What if the person eating the apple gets food poisoning, and the other person doesn’t believe them, or says they need to get over it?

What if the person eating the apple was lying about it being poisoned(and was only acting like they had been poisoned), for attention or to forward an agenda?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.

And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.

Let’s say hypothetically that you could, though. There is a very large contingent of black people that are mad about Jack Black’s name. Would you still say that it’s silly?

Hypothetically, I’d still say I think it’s silly, but I’d also allow for the possibility that I don’t fully understand the situation due to my experiences being different than a black person’s experiences. Yeah, it’s probably still silly, but why do so many black people believe otherwise?

So would you then demand that Jack Black change his name?

I haven’t yet heard why so many black people are offended by his current name.

You didn’t answer the question. We were talking about a hypothetical where very large contingent of black people were mad about the guy’s name.

Read my responses again. I can’t answer the question because I don’t have the relevant information.

ok, you need to know why they are offended, not just that they are offended. Fair enough.

Also what do you mean by “demand Jack Black change his name”? How exactly would I be doing that?

petition? post on facebook/twitter?

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.

And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

I feel there is plenty of room for multiple races, including the privileged majority, at the table of discussion. I feel like your above post was the first to truly acknowledge that.

Take Affirmative Action as an example. Minorities are not proportionally represented in certain work environments (particularly white color jobs) or in higher levels of education. So institutions might lower their standards for particular races in an effort to create a nominal representation.

But then think of the white guy with the 3.9 GPA who is not admitted to the elite school of his choice, but learns that the black gal with the 3.4 was. He might feel some resentment. Simply saying, “Oh, you’re a privileged white guy and you’ll find another school,” does not necessarily solve his feelings of disappointment or frustration. It might exacerbate feelings of resentment towards African-Americans he already held. Similarly, the 3.4 black student may not be as prepared for school and might be unable to make it through the program, owing to the challenges of attempting to make it through a school of intense standards. Perhaps this student might have had better success at a less prestigious school.

Bear in mind, this is in no way stating one race is inherently more intelligent than another. I feel this is obvious, but I worry that my words might be misinterpreted.

Back to my example, hey, we want minorities to be able to reach their dreams. Many do, in fact, come from an underprivileged environment, possibly in some urban school where the educational standards were not as high. This presents a challenge when trying to overcome the disadvantaged position of society. Lowering standards is a sort of an opportunity to get a foot up from that disadvantage. On the other hand, it could also be an opportunity for greater failure. And though the elementary education of the two students in question was not equal, will creating different standards for the same students now at the university-level somehow create equality? Probably not.

I’m not actually trying to say which is better: Affirmative Action or flat rate standards. I am trying to point out that it is a complex issue. Usually, these issues actually require people of different perspectives to find a healthy, lasting solution. Excluding whites, even whites who do not fully understand the nature of white privilege, from the discussion leads to more problems than it solves.

Affirmative Action is a much more complex (and important) issue than an ESPN commercial that might be offensive. I’m not so quick to write off anyone’s opinion on it. I’m conflicted myself.

So again you’re deciding when an issue complex enough for it to be ok for a white person to have and opinion about it and state it.

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.

And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?

what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.

I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.

I feel there is plenty of room for multiple races, including the privileged majority, at the table of discussion. I feel like your above post was the first to truly acknowledge that.

Take Affirmative Action as an example. Minorities are not proportionally represented in certain work environments (particularly white color jobs) or in higher levels of education. So institutions might lower their standards for particular races in an effort to create a nominal representation.

But then think of the white guy with the 3.9 GPA who is not admitted to the elite school of his choice, but learns that the black gal with the 3.4 was. He might feel some resentment. Simply saying, “Oh, you’re a privileged white guy and you’ll find another school,” does not necessarily solve his feelings of disappointment or frustration. It might exacerbate feelings of resentment towards African-Americans he already held. Similarly, the 3.4 black student may not be as prepared for school and might be unable to make it through the program, owing to the challenges of attempting to make it through a school of intense standards. Perhaps this student might have had better success at a less prestigious school.

Bear in mind, this is in no way stating one race is inherently more intelligent than another. I feel this is obvious, but I worry that my words might be misinterpreted.

Back to my example, hey, we want minorities to be able to reach their dreams. Many do, in fact, come from an underprivileged environment, possibly in some urban school where the educational standards were not as high. This presents a challenge when trying to overcome the disadvantaged position of society. Lowering standards is a sort of an opportunity to get a foot up from that disadvantage. On the other hand, it could also be an opportunity for greater failure. And though the elementary education of the two students in question was not equal, will creating different standards for the same students now at the university-level somehow create equality? Probably not.

I’m not actually trying to say which is better: Affirmative Action or flat rate standards. I am trying to point out that it is a complex issue. Usually, these issues actually require people of different perspectives to find a healthy, lasting solution. Excluding whites, even whites who do not fully understand the nature of white privilege, from the discussion leads to more problems than it solves.

I’d post a clapping pic here, but I already agreed not to do that.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’m not saying he shouldn’t care about children starving because he’s not starving. I’m saying he shouldn’t bitch about black people being offended by something that they are offended by. There’s a difference.

I don’t think there is.

Well then there’s nothing further to discuss. If you consider that dismissive then so be it.

evidence of bad attitude.

Whatever sigh eyeroll clapping gif etcetera.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FTFY

what did you fix?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.

And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.

Let’s say hypothetically that you could, though. There is a very large contingent of black people that are mad about Jack Black’s name. Would you still say that it’s silly?

Hypothetically, I’d still say I think it’s silly, but I’d also allow for the possibility that I don’t fully understand the situation due to my experiences being different than a black person’s experiences. Yeah, it’s probably still silly, but why do so many black people believe otherwise?

So would you then demand that Jack Black change his name?

I haven’t yet heard why so many black people are offended by his current name.

You didn’t answer the question. We were talking about a hypothetical where very large contingent of black people were mad about the guy’s name.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

No I’m asking what evidence in the ESPN thing? A lot of people (not just blacks but let’s say a lot of black people) thought it was offensive and shouldn’t have been done. Warb’s opinion is that those people are wrong, my opinion is that he shouldn’t give that particular opinion. I’m not saying he can’t, I’m saying he shouldn’t. What’s the available evidence that says I’m wrong or that Warb is right?

Your opinion is not contrary to Warbler’s opinion. Your opinion is opposed to Warbler’s opinion itself. You’re opposed to the idea that he has an opinion. Warbler’s opinion being wrong doesn’t make yours right.

Even if his opinion is incorrect, white privilege or not, he should be allowed to have it. And this is an open forum, so as long as he is civil he should be allowed to communicate it.

Can we just assume you’re going to agree with everything he says so you can spare us 30 more posts with the same gif?

ok.

You already answered this question once with the clapping gif so it’s not clear what this response means.

no I didn’t, that was yhwx.

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

No I’m asking what evidence in the ESPN thing? A lot of people (not just blacks but let’s say a lot of black people) thought it was offensive and shouldn’t have been done. Warb’s opinion is that those people are wrong, my opinion is that he shouldn’t give that particular opinion. I’m not saying he can’t, I’m saying he shouldn’t. What’s the available evidence that says I’m wrong or that Warb is right?

Your opinion is not contrary to Warbler’s opinion. Your opinion is opposed to Warbler’s opinion itself. You’re opposed to the idea that he has an opinion. Warbler’s opinion being wrong doesn’t make yours right.

Even if his opinion is incorrect, white privilege or not, he should be allowed to have it. And this is an open forum, so as long as he is civil he should be allowed to communicate it.

Can we just assume you’re going to agree with everything he says so you can spare us 30 more posts with the same gif?

yhwx said:

I’m not sure why people have the idea that Frink and only Frink has the ability to declare what people should and shouldn’t be offended by.

It is because of his reaction to my opinion about the fantasy auction as compared to his opinion about the Robert Lee thing.

He thinks it is ok for white people to be critical about being offended over someone being named Robert Lee, yet not ok for white people to be critical about being offended by the fantasy auction. And who gets to decide where the line between the two are? He does. No one else is allowed to draw that line for themselves(if they are white).

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

No I’m asking what evidence in the ESPN thing? A lot of people (not just blacks but let’s say a lot of black people) thought it was offensive and shouldn’t have been done. Warb’s opinion is that those people are wrong, my opinion is that he shouldn’t give that particular opinion. I’m not saying he can’t, I’m saying he shouldn’t. What’s the available evidence that says I’m wrong or that Warb is right?

Your opinion is not contrary to Warbler’s opinion. Your opinion is opposed to Warbler’s opinion itself. You’re opposed to the idea that he has an opinion. Warbler’s opinion being wrong doesn’t make yours right.

Even if his opinion is incorrect, white privilege or not, he should be allowed to have it. And this is an open forum, so as long as he is civil he should be allowed to communicate it.

Can we just assume you’re going to agree with everything he says so you can spare us 30 more posts with the same gif?

ok.

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.

I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.

And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.

Let’s say hypothetically that you could, though. There is a very large contingent of black people that are mad about Jack Black’s name. Would you still say that it’s silly?

Hypothetically, I’d still say I think it’s silly, but I’d also allow for the possibility that I don’t fully understand the situation due to my experiences being different than a black person’s experiences. Yeah, it’s probably still silly, but why do so many black people believe otherwise?

So would you then demand that Jack Black change his name?