TheManxMissile wrote:
Sorry but forget food, the dumbest as usual comes from the USA. Washington Redskins (as seems to happen every year) called racist and looked into changing their name away from Redskins. (yes i do know the history and arguments of both sides, but christ it's pointless)
But in this world of political correctness and lawsuits, it is an inevitable consequence that someone will be offended and request changes. Sometimes it is a good thing to stop with certain traditions and that has to be accepted. And yes sometimes it really is dumb, but hey live with it and play GTA where you can shoot hookers, say the N-word then get high on meth
Or the spurs fans. They (sometimes) call themselves the Yid Army, because they have a load of jewish supporters apparently, but the Black and Asian Defenders want to stop them from doing so, because, again, it's racist.
And every time somebody mentions GTA, i think of that the N-Word is said 1200 times in-game. Man, i hate fun Facts.
Tottenham Hotspur is a complicated one. The Yid chants were originally used by rival fans as an insult back in the 60's and 70's. However the Spurs fans then adopted the chants themselves for benevolent reasons and as f*ck you to the rival fans.
Now some groups want to get rid of the chants because Yid can be used in a derogatory sense, and was originally in the chant. But the counter arguments are based upon the fact that the chant is now entirely clean in meaning.
The debate comes down to whether it should be cut out because of it's original intentions, or allowed to stand because of it's newer meaning.
I think everybody should be able to say what he wants,or to name a product like he wants. We can judge him from the moral point of view because of it, but law chnages in these cases are so stupid.
You can hardly call this democratic. Also those who are not able to take jokes or traditions with certain level of outsight are pathetic.
What is next, Arnold Schwarzenneger being renamed to Arnold Afroamerican?
I can say nigga as how many times i want and it does not make me racist, hell, even black people call themselves with this one.
But it is not jusr "racism". There is also madness going about feminism and other political correct bullshit.
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 24-10-2013 06:05
It is ridiculous. I agree.
If people have chants let them chants. But chants that were originally intended to be racist should not be allowed to be said. As long as there is a large number of people complaining against them.
Selwink wrote:
We have the following discussion in the Netherlands. Some of you might already have heard of Sinterklaas. For those who haven't, he's a sort of equivalent of Santa. He has these helpers, called Zwarte Pieten. They have been in the Dutch culture for 200 years or so. However, suddenly, 21(!) activists in Amsterdam have now called it racist. The story goes, that they are black because of the soot. What do you think, is it racist anyway? The UN, believe it or not, have now decided to start an investigation on it. On the other hand, it could become heritage as well. This world is really weird
I've read a little more about the subject, so I can talk a little about it now.
Whilst the Dutch are known to be a rather tolerant nation, and a liberal one regarding society (weed consumption, gay marriage, etc.), there's also a dark conservative side to it, with populist and nationalist parties (Geert Wilders' PVV).
Zwarte Piet (Black Peter) is supposed to be black because of soot, but he's not. Face it : big lips and clean clothes, he's a black person, not a white one covered of soil.
He's the black person that's both foolish and punishing children (and rewarding them with candies too), which is the reflection of a patronizing and condescending view of black people from colonies by native Dutch people, from the time Netherlands had colonies.
Zwarte Piet tradition might not be celebrated by racist people, but it is a racist tradition by essence.
Let's face it, all countries that have had colonies have a complicated relationship with their history and people who come from formerly colonized lands.
Aquarius wrote:
I've read a little more about the subject, so I can talk a little about it now.
Whilst the Dutch are known to be a rather tolerant nation, and a liberal one regarding society (weed consumption, gay marriage, etc.), there's also a dark conservative side to it, with populist and nationalist parties (Geert Wilders' PVV).
Completely irrellevant to the discussion at hand.
Zwarte Piet (Black Peter) is supposed to be black because of soot, but he's not. Face it : big lips and clean clothes, he's a black person, not a white one covered of soil.
The explaination that is used is that he is black because he climbs down the chimney. It is only given by parents to children if they ask. Nobody in the Netherlands seriously believes this and every adult knows that Black Pete is black simply because he is.
He's the black person that's both foolish
False. Black Pete is portrayed as pragmatical and no less intelligent than Sinterklaas, who himself is portayed as forgetful and absent minded but sincere and just.
and punishing children
No longer relevant. You are now judging this festival based on an aspect that was abolished 50+ years ago. Culture is subject to change and so has this. Besides, back then Sinterklaas was equally mean to children, taking them with him to his home in Spain if they were bad.
(and rewarding them with candies too)
You are diminshing the most important aspect of this festival while presenting the former ones inaccurately as relevant. Candy and presents is what this festival is only about. Literrally.
which is the reflection of a patronizing and condescending view of black people from colonies by native Dutch people, from the time Netherlands had colonies.
This is the most discriminating thing I have ever heard someone say about the Dutch.
Zwarte Piet tradition might not be celebrated by racist people, but it is a racist tradition by essence.
Culture is subject to change. So is tradition. Either you are purposely judging it by its history and not by its present meaning, in which case you are doing the wrong thing, or you are under the impression that the celebration hasn't changed over the years, in which case you have no idea what you're talking about.
Black Pete is not intended to make fun of or to put away black people at all by the people organizing the festival (the parents), nor is it percieved as such by the people experiencing it (children). It has zero racist meaning to it. The only reason Black Pete is black is simply because he's always been black.
I honestly can't believe you think you've read enough about the subject to say something about it, yet at the same time you attempt to characterize and judge the entire Dutch nation for it. That's incredibly short-sighted, to put it politely.
Good post Shorts
I'm definitely against the abolishing of Zwarte Piet as well. I believe 95% of the Dutch people are anyway
For example, more than 2 million people have already liked the 'Pietitie' on Facebook.
Edited by Jesleyh on 29-10-2013 14:11
Aquarius wrote:
I've read a little more about the subject, so I can talk a little about it now.
Whilst the Dutch are known to be a rather tolerant nation, and a liberal one regarding society (weed consumption, gay marriage, etc.), there's also a dark conservative side to it, with populist and nationalist parties (Geert Wilders' PVV).
Completely irrellevant to the discussion at hand.
Is it ? I should have written that somewhere further down my message, but I had too little time to edit it when I wrote.
Anyway, fact is you might have a tolerant nation, but you (the Dutch) are not racist-proof either.
ShortsNL wrote:
Zwarte Piet (Black Peter) is supposed to be black because of soot, but he's not. Face it : big lips and clean clothes, he's a black person, not a white one covered of soil.
The explaination that is used is that he is black because he climbs down the chimney. It is only given by parents to children if they ask. Nobody in the Netherlands seriously believes this and every adult knows that Black Pete is black simply because he is.
He's the black person that's both foolish
False. Black Pete is portrayed as pragmatical and no less intelligent than Sinterklaas, who himself is portayed as forgetful and absent minded but sincere and just.
and punishing children
No longer relevant. You are now judging this festival based on an aspect that was abolished 50+ years ago. Culture is subject to change and so has this. Besides, back then Sinterklaas was equally mean to children, taking them with him to his home in Spain if they were bad.
(and rewarding them with candies too)
You are diminshing the most important aspect of this festival while presenting the former ones inaccurately as relevant. Candy and presents is what this festival is only about. Literrally.
Alright, he's just a black person, not one covered in soot. But I was reacting to the original message, where the children explanation was the only one given.
I should have added to the details the golden rings in the nose or stuff like that that makes him a person-of-little-civilization. Some black people find it offensive, be they right or wrong. We wouldn't be talking about this if they didn't feel offended. I didn't invent that.
ShortsNL wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
which is the reflection of a patronizing and condescending view of black people from colonies by native Dutch people, from the time Netherlands had colonies.
This is the most discriminating thing I have ever heard someone say about the Dutch.
Is it ? I've not filled the complaint at the UN. But someone has. Because she felt offended by the representation the the Dutch tradition gives of black people through Black Pete.
ShortsNL wrote:
Zwarte Piet tradition might not be celebrated by racist people, but it is a racist tradition by essence.
Culture is subject to change. So is tradition. Either you are purposely judging it by its history and not by its present meaning, in which case you are doing the wrong thing, or you are under the impression that the celebration hasn't changed over the years, in which case you have no idea what you're talking about.
Black Pete is not intended to make fun of or to put away black people at all by the people organizing the festival (the parents), nor is it percieved as such by the people experiencing it (children). It has zero racist meaning to it. The only reason Black Pete is black is simply because he's always been black.
I honestly can't believe you think you've read enough about the subject to say something about it, yet at the same time you attempt to characterize and judge the entire Dutch nation for it. That's incredibly short-sighted, to put it politely.
I read this a second or third time, and the more I think of it, the more I think you've missed my point. I thought I had written clearly enough that it wasn't celebrated by racists (or I hope so), but that it has its origin in a racist, or to put it more verbally like I did, a patronizing, condescending and degrading image of black people. And when did it come up ? At a time (17th century) when the Dutch, like many other European nations, had colonies in countries with black populations.
Again, I'm not saying it should be changed (nor that it shouldn't ), but you can't deny the racist origins of the tradition, nor the fact that some black people have felt offended by the representation Black Pete gives of black people.
The fact 2 million support the facebook page is more worrying than relevant. I believe it shows people feel offended when their tradition is questioned rather than facing the inconvenient aspects I've listed in the paragraph above.
Edited by Aquarius on 29-10-2013 19:45
You say here the origins are racist. That's 100% true. However, this doesn't mean it's racist now. There are so many traditions that have a discriminating origin, but aren't anymore. Should all those be forbidden as well then?
I hope that the common sense will "win" in Netherlands and you will be able to hold on your traditions. These political correct nonsense actions are madness of these times. It is actually in most times done by people who never achieved a thing a cant do anything worthy in their lives. So they poke with their sticks in shit and are looking to ways to get their names somewhere, by attacking the traditions and other lives, telling them what is right to do.
Selwink wrote:
You say here the origins are racist. That's 100% true. However, this doesn't mean it's racist now. There are so many traditions that have a discriminating origin, but aren't anymore. Should all those be forbidden as well then?
Yep, also majority of traditions and national feasts are based on killing the other people in the past, does that make them bad?
Fairly rubbish argument...
Firstly the basis of God means that he could not be eaten(assuming we are talking about a Christian/Jewish/Muslim style of God where it is All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Benevolent and Immortal).
Secondly if there was a thing powerful enough to eat God, then God is not the most powerful being, and is not in fact God. So in actuality Eric is not a God eating Penguin. He's just a very powerful (and large) Penguin. He hasn't killed God, as God could still exist because God cannot be eaten.
Thirdly, Erics non-existence has no bearing on any other existence. As i said absence of one thing does not equal absence of another. Eric doesn't exist, so why must God suddenly not exist? The two are not related in any sense.
However if God were to stop existing, potentially Eric would then cease to exist assuming all Eric can eat is God. Without a food source Eric would die, and hence cease to exist. But as God does not eat Eric, or need Eric to live, the loss of Eric has no bearing on its existence.
However, again, if Eric is the only mortal being then you could argue that his existence is linked to that of God. Without anyone to perceive "reality" it has to be assumed that "reality" does not exist, and therefore God will cease to exist. But that was not the argument put forward
Fourthly, in fact there is no argument put forward for either side. It's just a rough attempt at some fairly thin logic designed to confuse one side of the debate. The person putting forth the idea offers up no substantial idea as to how Eric relates to God or how eithers non-existence relates to other. The person merely makes the conclusion with no supporting evidence. Hence this is not a valid argument.
Fifthly, i have just proved that Eric the God-eating Penguin does not exist, because nothing is more powerful than God (therefore God cannot be eaten). So in this situation Eric is just very powerful, but there can still be God but he was/is unknown.
So, "either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you can't - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist."
I have proved that Eric either doesn't exist or is mis-named, and that at the same time God can exist.
Logiced bitch!
Edited by TheManxMissile on 30-10-2013 09:38
Putting 1000 words in rapid succesion is not called logic Manx.
From the pure logical view on the situation (how greeks established it), it is not important how powerful something is, or at least not important to relation of its existence or non-existence. You dont have the logical proof of his all mightyness, it is just a fairy tale like Cindarella is.
Also relation you are mentioning is not important, he is there only to show how easy it is to use logic against beliefs. Existence of God-eating penguin is as logical as existence of God is, not at all.
But my belief of existence of god-eating penguin pretty much disproves existence of god, because he was eaten by him. Or you have proofs that god-eating penguin does not exist, you did not give me any so far.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Putting 1000 words in rapid succesion is not called logic Manx.
Quick thing, is this about my post, or the original image?
From the pure logical view on the situation (how greeks established it), it is not important how powerful something is, or at least not important to relation of its existence or non-existence. You dont have the logical proof of his all mightyness, it is just a fairy tale like Cindarella is.
Greeks the top of logic? Smart yes but hardly the most knowledgeable of people.
But the original image was not arguing about the nature of God (his all mightyness) but his existence at all. It did take his abilities/nature as granted, but it was not part of the basic argument.
Also relation you are mentioning is not important, he is there only to show how easy it is to use logic against beliefs. Existence of God-eating penguin is as logical as existence of God is, not at all.
What logic? The original argument is fundamentally flawed, in part thanks to a basic error in the understanding of God (God cannot be eaten, hence Eric is misnamed and has no relation to the existence of God as a result). As a God-eating penguin cannot exist at all due to the nature of God the idea is lost. If that is the point then ok, just thats it is very badly made.
But my belief of existence of god-eating penguin pretty much disproves existence of god, because he was eaten by him. Or you have proofs that god-eating penguin does not exist, you did not give me any so far.
I'm saying that a God-eating penguin either 1)is mis-named, or 2)God itself.
God is the most powerful being in existence and thus cannot be eaten. So either Eric is mis-named or is in fact God himself. If Eric is then eaten, then what ate him is God, and so on.
But also i see no reason why i have to disprove the God-eating penguin, when i was not the one to introduce it. It was introduced as a real thing and i am taking it at that.
Also did you read my post? Cause i've just repeated most of it here and the points havn't changed.
Of course i read it Manx.
Why is the penguin mis-named? The thing that God is most powerful being is purely made up by (probably crazy or heavy drugged) people, so claiming that again and again does not make it logical truth.
So if you claim that God is the most powerful existence (putting aside how something that is not proven to exist can be "existence" but whatever), i can solely on same made up base claim,that God-eating penguin is even more powerful and can eat God.
Main idea od original post is that if you prove that God-eating penguin does not exist, same proof can be used to disproof existence of god. And if you cant prove God-eating penguin does not exist, he thus exists and has eaten God, who thus doe not exist. Clear?
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
