Canadian politics

Trudeau could stomp a baby to death and people will STILL look to defend him

Anyway, happy that this has happened to Trudeau mostly because his reputation in America has always been weirdly fetishized by "feminists" who talked about Trudeau as though he were some amazing PM simply because he was relatively young, handsome, and good looking [especially relative to other world leaders].

Not even talking about his policy, which I know little about, Trudeau has always been something of an annoyance to me because of this incredibly large and disturbing blindspot he's been in milennial social-leftist commentary.

Watching them turn on him has been amusing to say the least.

Honestly, I'm kind of offended by the FS2 coverage of Bundesliga whose stream I just watched, filled with images of Brezeln and zünftiger Blasmusik

CBarca wrote:Anyway, happy that this has happened to Trudeau mostly because his reputation in America has always been weirdly fetishized by "feminists" who talked about Trudeau as though he were some amazing PM simply because he was relatively young, handsome, and good looking [especially relative to other world leaders].

Not even talking about his policy, which I know little about, Trudeau has always been something of an annoyance to me because of this incredibly large and disturbing blindspot he's been in milennial social-leftist commentary.

Watching them turn on him has been amusing to say the least.

He's 47 can you believe

Easily looks 10 years younger

Wealth is health

CBarca wrote:Anyway, happy that this has happened to Trudeau mostly because his reputation in America has always been weirdly fetishized by "feminists" who talked about Trudeau as though he were some amazing PM simply because he was relatively young, handsome, and good looking [especially relative to other world leaders].

Not even talking about his policy, which I know little about, Trudeau has always been something of an annoyance to me because of this incredibly large and disturbing blindspot he's been in milennial social-leftist commentary.

Watching them turn on him has been amusing to say the least.

I'm not a girl or gay, so perhaps my comment on male attraction should be taken with a pinch of salt.

But if I were a girl, I'd find a guy who looks strong, manly, with raw aggression and a thick voice (see Bibi Netanyahu as much as I don't like him as a person) a lot more attractive than a cute, feminized puppy like Trudeau...

One time someone told me I look like Trudeau and I was deeply offended =(


Anyways, as mentioned before, it's soooo hilarious this happened to super-progressive PM peoplekind. If this relative nothingburger actually brings him down rather than his terrible tenure as PM, then that just sums up Canada .

But then again, conservatives have a leader with charisma of a dead fish in Scheer, and Mad Max' party is still in its infancy and will take some votes away from Cons, so I won't be surprised one bit to see Trudeau re-elected relatively easily.

Vibe wrote:For some reason this thread made me think of gypsies.

I was thinking about how maybe I don't truly understand this becaue I live in Serbia and don't really have any minorities here.

But then I remembered we have gypsies. You can insult them, you can berate them, disrespect them, anything you want, they don't fucking care. The slightest.

Gypsies are amazing. All they wanna do is barbecue in the middle of the street with their shirts off and blast gypsy music from their house, and sell their kids.

Great people.

im a gypsy and in england we dont sell our kids. who the fuck in there right mind would buy a gypsy kid. we cant give them away ffs. also people saying stereotyping people is racist but all comidians use stereotyping in 80% of the jokes they tell that goes for black white or any other but everyone just laughs it off. i mean just look at people like dave chappelle eddy murphy chris rock martin lawrence they all do it and tbh they are funny as fuck.

Vibe wrote:

Unique wrote:

Vibe wrote:For some reason this thread made me think of gypsies.

I was thinking about how maybe I don't truly understand this becaue I live in Serbia and don't really have any minorities here.

But then I remembered we have gypsies. You can insult them, you can berate them, disrespect them, anything you want, they don't fucking care. The slightest.

Gypsies are amazing. All they wanna do is barbecue in the middle of the street with their shirts off and blast gypsy music from their house, and sell their kids.

Great people.

im a gypsy and in england we dont sell our kids. who the fuck in there right mind would buy a gypsy kid. we cant give them away ffs. also people saying stereotyping people is racist but all comidians use stereotyping in 80% of the jokes they tell that goes for black white or any other but everyone just laughs it off. i mean just look at people like dave chappelle eddy murphy chris rock martin lawrence they all do it and tbh they are funny as fuck.

Our gypsies sell their female kids. Not like into slavery, but if there's someone who wants to marry a nice gypsy girl, goes to the father and negotiates a price.

thats some crazy shit man.

I've seen a great comedy film about that BLACK CAT WHITE CAT

I think it's precisely from Serbia

Warrior wrote:I've seen a great comedy film about that BLACK CAT WHITE CAT

I think it's precisely from Serbia

Kusturica, yes. He's a Bosnian Serb.

Be sure to watch his other work too, from before Black Cat White Cat.

That happens all over the (poor) world, not just gypsies. If you want to marry a girl you pay the parents a certain transfer fee and she is all yours. Though, like in football, the transfered one has a say in it and can decline. Of course the poorest families have no real choice and would accept anyone as long as the price is right.

Hapless_Hans wrote:Honestly, I'm kind of offended by the FS2 coverage of Bundesliga whose stream I just watched, filled with images of Brezeln and zünftiger Blasmusik

They really do go overboard with the Oktoberfest thing, it is like all of USA think that Germany is all about Beer and oompahpahpah musik. Absolutely terrible, I find I have to hide in my cottage all the time now for fear of someone giving me pretzels, drinking beer and listening to James Last albums all the time

As for Canadian politics, most have already forgot about the Brownface incident and no one will vote for for nerdy, pudgy face Sheer. So Trudeau will probably sneak in unless more pictures surface, no not more blackface pics, but his real fetish, that he has sex with Northern Pike and Muskie.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Warrior wrote:I've seen a great comedy film about that BLACK CAT WHITE CAT

I think it's precisely from Serbia

Kusturica, yes. He's a Bosnian Serb.

Be sure to watch his other work too, from before Black Cat White Cat.

Black cat white cat is great because you have comedy, crime, romance, music all in the same film

I am currently in a stretch of watching many films. Which one i should start with ?

In Quebec the "blackface" scandal was a non-thing. Literally nobody cares. But in the english Canada it was a hot topic last week.

Trudeau will still receive a majority of his votes from visible minorities, but i don't think it's enough to be re-elected. Just too much of a fraud as PM and people don't care JUST for immigration laws, there are other things in life. It will be conservatives as new government, close call or not.

Trudeau has not taken care of society he just wanted to picture Canada as a freedom land for refugees. Meanwhile the amerindians live in shitholes and they are still selling cigarettes for a living, sniffing gas and drinking prestone to get high, because helping them does not gives you votes or international rep. How ironic huh.

https://abacusdata.ca/a-sensational-week-yet-a-tight-race-remains/

In conclusión only 8% of Canadians  still care about this

Warrior wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Warrior wrote:I've seen a great comedy film about that BLACK CAT WHITE CAT

I think it's precisely from Serbia

Kusturica, yes. He's a Bosnian Serb.

Be sure to watch his other work too, from before Black Cat White Cat.

Black cat white cat is great because you have comedy, crime, romance, music all in the same film

I am currently in a stretch of watching many films. Which one i should start with ?

Underground is one epic, devastating film and for me the definitive film about the Yugoslavian civil war

The early ones -Time of the gypsies and the first one (think it's called Dad has holidays or something)- are just sweet, gorgeous, beautiful films

Don't know any of the films he made in the recent decade or two tbh
He made a documentary about Maradona though

Hapless_Hans wrote:

McLewis wrote:  I'll never understand the thought process of anyone who thinks it's ok to paint their face to play act as another ethnicity. It makes absolutely no logical or moral sense.

I don't know what's so tough to understand about this tbh.
If you dress up as another person, you strive to emulate what's striking, or defining, about the way they look.
And if you go in costume as an stereotypical figure, you will try to wear the corresponding stereotypical attributes.

Nothing about this is illogical or immoral unless you consider the  concept of costume, or acting, or pretending, nonsensical and amoral.

That white people stereotyping black people in 'blackface' has a very hurtful history written in the history of racism and exploitation is of course also part of that.
But it's surely not the basic fact that white people dressed up as black people that was immoral and what is considered offensive about blackface, but the remorseless propagation of racist stereotypes and degrading images that these impersonations were delivering.

"Arabian Nights" themed parties are more in the history of Western fascination with 'orientalism' than they would be in the history of "blackface", although of course surely there are some parallels, and I'm not meaning to suggest that this wouldn't be offensive.

Haven't had a whole lot of time to give this post the response it deserves, but I really think we're coming at this from 2 very different perspectives.

I do not believe there are any acceptable uses for blackface in modern global society that promote positive outcomes or results in positive discourse. Perhaps it's not fair to other cultures, who today may not have been aware of the harm that blackface has caused to my community historically, but this is the Information Age. It has never been easier for someone to educate themselves, especially if they are thinking about putting on blackface. The act itself is bad, the failure to consider who this may offend is what is truly maddening to me. I do not accept ignorance as a valid excuse here when information is freely available.. It was true in 2001 and it has only gotten even more so.

The bottom-line here is I'll never see blackface and not have a visceral, negative reaction to it. The context and intent are completely irrelevant to me. It's like hearing the n-word or the racist chanting in stadiums / bananas being thrown at black players. Those actions cause the same exact viscerally negative reaction from me, regardless of the context. When I see people (especially ones I like) do or say these things, no matter who they are, I'm going to look at them differently than I did before they said it and it won't be in a positive light. The same is true with blackface.

I know I'm known around here for being objective and open-minded in general, however I refuse to compromise on this topic. Many of you will think I'm wrong on this and you're free to think that. It will not change my mind.

McLewis wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

McLewis wrote:  I'll never understand the thought process of anyone who thinks it's ok to paint their face to play act as another ethnicity. It makes absolutely no logical or moral sense.

I don't know what's so tough to understand about this tbh.
If you dress up as another person, you strive to emulate what's striking, or defining, about the way they look.
And if you go in costume as an stereotypical figure, you will try to wear the corresponding stereotypical attributes.

Nothing about this is illogical or immoral unless you consider the  concept of costume, or acting, or pretending, nonsensical and amoral.

That white people stereotyping black people in 'blackface' has a very hurtful history written in the history of racism and exploitation is of course also part of that.
But it's surely not the basic fact that white people dressed up as black people that was immoral and what is considered offensive about blackface, but the remorseless propagation of racist stereotypes and degrading images that these impersonations were delivering.

"Arabian Nights" themed parties are more in the history of Western fascination with 'orientalism' than they would be in the history of "blackface", although of course surely there are some parallels, and I'm not meaning to suggest that this wouldn't be offensive.

Haven't had a whole lot of time to give this post the response it deserves, but I really think we're coming at this from 2 very different perspectives.

I do not believe there are any acceptable uses for blackface in modern global society that promote positive outcomes or results in positive discourse. Perhaps it's not fair to other cultures, who today may not have been aware of the harm that blackface has caused to my community historically, but this is the Information Age. It has never been easier for someone to educate themselves, especially if they are thinking about putting on blackface. The act itself is bad, the failure to consider who this may offend is what is truly maddening to me. I do not accept ignorance as a valid excuse here when information is freely available.. It was true in 2001 and it has only gotten even more so.

The bottom-line here is I'll never see blackface and not have a visceral, negative reaction to it. The context and intent are completely irrelevant to me. It's like hearing the n-word or the racist chanting in stadiums / bananas being thrown at black players. Those actions cause the same exact viscerally negative reaction from me, regardless of the context. When I see people (especially ones I like) do or say these things, no matter who they are, I'm going to look at them differently than I did before they said it and it won't be in a positive light. The same is true with blackface.

I know I'm known around here for being objective and open-minded in general, however I refuse to compromise on this topic. Many of you will think I'm wrong on this and you're free to think that. It will not change my mind.

But that's completely understandable, and completely logical, and I'm not trying to get you to compromise on that.

The N-word is not just any word, it's a racist word. It has a racist meaning, it came into being to express racism, it has a racist usage history. It's a racist word.
This is a clear-cut case.

Similarly, of course 'blackface' in the US is a racist practice, with a racist history, done with racist intent.

But my point was, not every instance of one ethnicity dressing up as another ethnicity has to be racist, or offensive, so that it would be "illogical" or "immoral" to do it, as you said.

'White Chicks' isn't racist, and it isn't offensive, to take the most blatant example.
It would take a special kind of arrogance to claim that I, as a white guy, would be offended by White CHicks and would consider it racist.

But don't get me wrong, my point is NOT that because White Chicks isn't offensive, Blackface can't be offensive either. (lots of people, be they libertarian or racism apologists or both, employing exactly that logic)
Because it's not the equivalent of blackface. Not every act of painting your face to mimic another "race", or ethnicity, is equivalent. Or of dressing up as some group.
Some are clearly racist and offensive, some very few are arguably not, and some are a grey area, from light grey to dark grey.
Though probably most instances tend to fall into the darker side of the spectrum.

Throwing bananas at black people is the same to you as wearing brown paint on your face not (directly) bothering any black people at all? hmmm you sure?

It was black paint

Hapless_Hans wrote:

McLewis wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

McLewis wrote:  I'll never understand the thought process of anyone who thinks it's ok to paint their face to play act as another ethnicity. It makes absolutely no logical or moral sense.

I don't know what's so tough to understand about this tbh.
If you dress up as another person, you strive to emulate what's striking, or defining, about the way they look.
And if you go in costume as an stereotypical figure, you will try to wear the corresponding stereotypical attributes.

Nothing about this is illogical or immoral unless you consider the  concept of costume, or acting, or pretending, nonsensical and amoral.

That white people stereotyping black people in 'blackface' has a very hurtful history written in the history of racism and exploitation is of course also part of that.
But it's surely not the basic fact that white people dressed up as black people that was immoral and what is considered offensive about blackface, but the remorseless propagation of racist stereotypes and degrading images that these impersonations were delivering.

"Arabian Nights" themed parties are more in the history of Western fascination with 'orientalism' than they would be in the history of "blackface", although of course surely there are some parallels, and I'm not meaning to suggest that this wouldn't be offensive.

Haven't had a whole lot of time to give this post the response it deserves, but I really think we're coming at this from 2 very different perspectives.

I do not believe there are any acceptable uses for blackface in modern global society that promote positive outcomes or results in positive discourse. Perhaps it's not fair to other cultures, who today may not have been aware of the harm that blackface has caused to my community historically, but this is the Information Age. It has never been easier for someone to educate themselves, especially if they are thinking about putting on blackface. The act itself is bad, the failure to consider who this may offend is what is truly maddening to me. I do not accept ignorance as a valid excuse here when information is freely available.. It was true in 2001 and it has only gotten even more so.

The bottom-line here is I'll never see blackface and not have a visceral, negative reaction to it. The context and intent are completely irrelevant to me. It's like hearing the n-word or the racist chanting in stadiums / bananas being thrown at black players. Those actions cause the same exact viscerally negative reaction from me, regardless of the context. When I see people (especially ones I like) do or say these things, no matter who they are, I'm going to look at them differently than I did before they said it and it won't be in a positive light. The same is true with blackface.

I know I'm known around here for being objective and open-minded in general, however I refuse to compromise on this topic. Many of you will think I'm wrong on this and you're free to think that. It will not change my mind.

But that's completely understandable, and completely logical, and I'm not trying to get you to compromise on that.

The N-word is not just any word, it's a racist word. It has a racist meaning, it came into being to express racism, it has a racist usage history. It's a racist word.
This is a clear-cut case.

Similarly, of course 'blackface' in the US is a racist practice, with a racist history, done with racist intent.

But my point was, not every instance of one ethnicity dressing up as another ethnicity has to be racist, or offensive, so that it would be "illogical" or "immoral" to do it, as you said.

'White Chicks' isn't racist, and it isn't offensive, to take the most blatant example.
It would take a special kind of arrogance to claim that I, as a white guy, would be offended by White CHicks and would consider it racist.

But don't get me wrong, my point is NOT that because White Chicks isn't offensive, Blackface can't be offensive either. (lots of people, be they libertarian or racism apologists or both, employing exactly that logic)
Because it's not the equivalent of blackface. Not every act of painting your face to mimic another "race", or ethnicity, is equivalent. Or of dressing up as some group.
Some are clearly racist and offensive, some very few are arguably not, and some are a grey area, from light grey to dark grey.
Though probably most instances tend to fall into the darker side of the spectrum.

See, I'm not white so my thoughts on White Chicks aren't, of course, as strong as they are on blackface. Personally, I didn't care for the movie myself because it opens the door to white people (particularly of the American persuasion) thinking it's ok to do blackface by using White Chicks as the justification for it. It opens a can of worms that just isn't a road we should be going down as a society.

Given that you say that not every instance of an ethnicity painting their faces to resemble another ethnicity is racist, I'm curious: What are these seemingly legitimate instances where such as practice is accepted by general society, including the ethnicity being portrayed?

Myesyats wrote:Throwing bananas at black people is the same to you as wearing brown paint on your face not (directly) bothering any black people at all? hmmm you sure?

If you're asking me if this is really the hill I want to die on, my answer is yes....yes, it is. Racism is racism, no matter what shape it takes.

I dont see what is inherently racist about dressing up as someone of a different ethnicity. Not every country has the same history with costumes and face painting as the US. It can be done well, for fun, or it can poorly and for racist reasons. It's not all the same, its illogical to think it HAS to be the same. That, I say with my cultural upbringing of course, and that's the whole point. It's different for you, and both of our views are valid because they are made and applied in different contexts.

Claiming that because it's the age of information, one should know better than to do certain things that will offend a different culture, on a different continent, to me is extremely arrogant. So because there is a history of something in the US, I am now banned from doing a harmless inoffensive act in Italy or in Venezuela? If we go down this path then no one will be able to do anything within their own cultures because someone 10000 km away has a different cultural upbringing. Note, I dont mean to be insensitive about racist issues, but to say that the issues take different shapes in different cultures. One should be aware not to offend through ignorance those in our environments, but we cant account for every culture on the planet and their different sensibilities when we dont interact with them.

It's basically the opposite of cultural appropriation, its cultural imperialism. If one is offended because of our unique cultural baggage about an otherwise inoffensive act made in a different country, then I'm sorry but that's a private thing.

I remember when Griezmann dressed up as a globetrotter. Griezmann is an idiot but I dont see any racism in that. We mustn't be instantly triggered to think the worst of someone, by projecting our own experiences on to them. It is of course natural that a black person from the US would feel offended at Greizmann, yet that's not the same as calling him a racist. It is a cultural difference and a bit of stupidity sprinkled in from his side.

If I ask most members of my extended family (really all of them except maybe 4 of us in my age range) what is a minstrel show, none of them would know. None of them would take offense at any of this face painting either. And they are a very ethnically diverse group of people. Black, indigenous venezuelan, spanish and italian thrown in there.

Racism is racism? Yes. Now who gets to define what is racism? It changes in every culture. Within reason, there flexibilities and a spectrum here. Intention does matter, as does the severity of the act of course.

It's hard for me to come up with examples where it's acceptable to paint your face the colour of another race, or even make it darker than your own brown skin.

Since blackface is historically a term used in acting where it was used to keep black people from getting jobs, I'll use some examples of when I think it's okay and not okay.

The only thing I can really come up with is Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder, because it was smart, and making a point about using it, without the joke being against black people.

It's kind of closely like the movie Soul Man, that probably had the right intention behind its use of blackface, but then gave into a lot of racist stereotypes in trying to illustrate the point.

It can definitely be used intelligently and be non-racist, but it's damn hard for me to find examples of when it's been done. The black kid with whiteface in Atlanta maybe? Unless of course you want to count instances where people play Hulk, a Na'vi or something.

In the acting world it's just hard for it not to be racist, because it's often used to keep minorities from getting work, which can be seem in countless films throughout time, even classics like Breakfast at Tiffany's, West Side Story, Viva Zapata, The Conqueror, Lawrence of Arabia are just some of them. Some really classic movies that are products of a deeply racist system to keep minorities from getting work. They're hard to watch for me now.

Then there's also instances where there's black on black, blackface. When Zoe Saldana was playing Nina Simone.

Spoiler:

Also speaking of White Chicks. People often like to ask what would happen if the roles were reversed. And here's the answer:


The right wing comedy squad is really showing off

The Griezmann incident has been discussed plenty.

I think the main point is that you shouldn't paint your face black, because it makes a mockery of black people. It does so because you find them to be novelty that you dress up as, while they in society does not have the same rights and security in reality as white people do.

Dressing up as a black person shows a lot about how you find them novel and you don't really care about their struggles.

Cultural appropriation is also a real thing that has often been misinterpreted imo. There's nothing wrong with engaging in culture, wearing that culture's clothes when traveling etc. The problem is that, in America in particular, such a large part of the culture is created by a part of the population who face discrimination more than the part who wants to engage in that same culture. It becomes a problem, when people want to engage in their culture, but they don't want to fight for the rights of the people who create the culture.

It's like JID rapped in Medidate

JID wrote:Okay, everybody wanna be a nigga, but nobody wanna be a nigga when it's time to be a nigga

Johnny Venus wrote: Asians like, "That's my nigga"
Latins like, "That's my nigga"
White folks like, "That's my nigga"
'Til it's time to die, bye, bye, nigga

__
Sure, in an ideal world without racism etc. there wouldn't be a problem in mimicking another race. It can be done without racist intentions, but it's inherently a product of a racist system that we're still trying to evolve out of.