Dr. Arbitrary posted:

We need to do something about all those thugs, with their baggy pants, and their gold teeth, and their R&B ringtones.

No, I'm not racist, I never mentioned skin color. Maybe you're the real racist for assuming I was.

Augus posted:

Just wanna make sure here, are you still not aware that your original argument about "cultural appropriation being imagined racism" was completely off-base and pretty much a total sequitur? Or have you realized this fact but opted to dig yourself in further anyway? Or are you gonna say "Dance, Puppets, Dance" in your next post?

Dalael posted:

I said nothing about culture appropriation and that wasn't my point at all. My point was that this meme was not racist. Period.

You're the one moving the goal post here.

Dalael posted:

No. They're not. Just because "words" originated in the black community, does not mean its racist for others to use it. That's loving retarded and its literally making light of real racism that people actually face everyday. The words "Racism and racist" are being thrown out there randomly by people who have no loving clue of the meaning of the word, just like idiots who use the word rape for stupid poo poo like videogames.

Augus posted:

*sigh*


and for good measure, you might need to read up on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex#Association_areas

Dalael posted:

You're loving retarded...

jivjov posted:

Are ableist slurs necessary?

Dalael posted:

You're loving retarded...

Augus posted:

The image frames slang words, with african-american origins, being part of the accepted vernacular as a bad thing. Which is culturally intolerant. I don't know how to spell this out any clearer to you.
It's not about "using other people's words", it's about saying that those words are bad. This isn't complicated.


rude

quote:

We won an important battle by electing President Trump!
We are nowhere nearly done, because we must DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Join us to replace Congress with representatives not leeches,
so we can MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Augus posted:

The image frames slang words, with african-american origins, being part of the accepted vernacular as a bad thing. Which is culturally intolerant. I don't know how to spell this out any clearer to you.
It's not about "using other people's words", it's about saying that those words are bad. This isn't complicated.


rude

Defenestration posted:

Dalael posted:

No. They're not. Just because "words" originated in the black community, does not mean its racist for others to use it. That's loving retarded and its literally making light of real racism that people actually face everyday. The words "Racism and racist" are being thrown out there randomly by people who have no loving clue of the meaning of the word, just like idiots who use the word rape for stupid poo poo like videogames.

Dalael posted:

People ARE splitting hair all the time when it comes to this. Because too often, they fight about the most inane poo poo while letting real racism go on unpunished.

jivjov posted:

Are ableist slurs necessary?

Dalael posted:

Tell me, where does it say those words are bad? It only points out that these are generally understood even tho they're pretty loving recent in the history of language, while others that have been part of our language for so long are still improperly spelled. Thats what I understood from this. Why? Because I'm not looking to find racism in everything i see or read. But obviously, if you're looking for it, you'll find it.

Zeba Blay posted:

It's a slap in the face when white women wear black hairstyles

The concept of cultural appropriation has become a frequent topic of conversation, but still, the fashion world continues to make the most painfully obtuse, racially insensitive editorial decisions.

If it’s not a white model photographed in blackface, it’s an article declaring baby-hair and cornrows as the latest “trends” — even though those black styles have been around forever. This week, Allure magazine drew criticism for posting a brief article teaching “straight haired girls” (ie: white girls) how to get an afro.

On Aug. 3, black women on Tumblr and Twitter called out the tutorial for being racially insensitive and also inaccurate — white model and actress Marissa Neitling is pictured rocking corkscrew curls, hardly an afro. Twitter user Eileen Dautruche observed:

“Black Twitter” said it once, but let’s say it again: It is not cool for white women to wear black hairstyles. It is not cute. It is not flattering.

When white women wear black hairstyles, it’s a slap in the face to black women.

There are so many reasons why it’s not okay for white women to rock styles traditionally worn by black women, including Afros, braids (no, not French braids, calm down), dreadlocks, and baby hairs. Black hair is not just hair. There’s history and context tied to these styles that cannot be ignored, a historical legacy forever linked to the ongoing cultural remnants of slavery and institutional racism. A white person who wears these styles dismisses that context and turns black hair into a novelty, a parody, a subtle form of blackface.

Box braids and cornrows can be traced all the way to ancient African civilizations. The practice of loc-ing hair (which, no, doesn’t entail simply not washing the hair for several months) has religious ties to Rastafarianism.

The Afro came to prominence in the 1960s as a statement of pride and self-love in direct answer to white supremacy. And in the last five years, the natural hair movement, with its twist-outs, bantu knots, and wash-n-gos, has brought about a resurgence in self-acceptance among black women.

Black women have had our hair mocked and degraded, we have been called “nappy-headed-hoes,” and we have been socialized to believe that our hair is “bad” because it is not straight. When we do rock our natural hair, it’s called unkempt and unattractive.

In the professional world and in academia, having this so-called “unkempt” hair is often a liability. Meanwhile, colorful or elaborate weaves are called “ghetto” and “ratchet.” On the flip side, white women with unnaturally colored hair or offbeat styles are deemed quirky and alternative — a double standard to say the least.

As Annah Anti-Palindrome (a white women who used to wear dreadlocks) observed on Everyday Feminism,”Without any regard to personal qualifications, even with an incarceration record and no college education, I was often given responsibilities [at work] that put me in positions of authority over my co-workers of color. Despite my... appearance, I enjoyed a level of tolerance from authority figures and society at large that can only be attributed to my whiteness. “

White women are able to wear black hairstyles without the stigma of actually being black.

So, finally, no. No. When Black women straighten our hair, or dye it blonde, we’re not “appropriating white hairstyles” — it is not the same thing. The word you are looking for is assimilation. White hair is the norm. It is the default. It is the societal ideal. There are many reasons why black women today wear their hair either natural or straightened, but for the most part, the practice of straightening black hair came from a real necessity to conform and survive, and to better emulate societal beauty standards that oppress women of all races — standards that just happen to be based around white beauty.

It’s important to remember that when black women call out articles like the one featured in Allure, or criticize white women like Kylie Jenner or Rita Ora for wearing black styles, it’s not simply out of this need to deny access to something simply for the sake of it. To you, white women, it’s just a cool hairstyle. To us, it’s something we’ve fought to be able to fully embrace. There are other ways to admire or celebrate black hair without coopting it. But understand — black hair can be deeply political, deeply spiritual, and deeply personal.

Dalael posted:

And regarding cultural appropriation, here's an example of the idea of "cultural appropriation is bad" gone too far.

Tarezax posted:

That article is completely reasonable and you're an idiot.

Edit: White women get lauded for hairstyles black women get criticized for. How is that not an example of racism and cultural appropriation?

Tarezax posted:

Edit: White women get lauded for hairstyles black women get criticized for. How is that not an example of racism and cultural appropriation?

Dalael posted:

Who criticizes black women for those hairstyle? I have never heard of this poo poo before I read this article.
It's "cultural appropriation" run amok and nothing else.

LunarShadow posted:

Bruh, those hairstyles are considered "unprofessional " by employers when worn by black women.

Dalael posted:

And you know what, you're just proving the god drat point I was making 8 days ago.

As soon as someone doesn't have the "right opinion" on something, you idiots just gang up on that person and don't even try to understand that person's point of view. You just loving trash the person and ignore everything to try and gain some fake loving internet point. Go on reddit for that poo poo.

Sebadoh Gigante posted:

Dalael posted:

Your country is just loving weird.
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe things are just so much different in Canada where I live, because I see black women wear whatever hairstyle they want and nobody cares.
I think we even have a law that allows people to wear clothes/hairstyle how they want it and employers can't say poo poo about it. I'll try and look it up.

quote:

Questions often arise about whether an employer can enforce a dress code on employees. And the answer is – there is no simple answer. As with so many legal matters, the answer is influenced by the facts and the circumstances of each particular case. This article will attempt to provide some guidance.

Consider first, a workplace with a collective agreement governing a unionized workforce. A dress code is viewed as any other rule which management wishes to implement. It cannot be inconsistent with any provision of the Collective Agreement, it must be reasonable, it must be known to the employees and it must be enforced consistently. In assessing the reasonableness of dress codes, arbitrators balance the rights of employees and the rights of employers. Arbitrators recognize the right of the employer to require dress that is safe for the work being performed and also recognize that employers have the right to protect the image they wish to establish for their companies in order to promote their business interests.

The employee also has rights which come into play, especially where the dress or appearance the employer wishes to impose on the employee has an impact beyond the work place. Therefore rules against beards, facial jewelry, tattoos and so on, are often struck down by arbitrators since such rules intrude into employees’ lives outside of work. Arbitrators have required strong business justification, and solid evidence supporting that justification, from employers to support the validity of such rules. At the other end of the spectrum, where the dress code requires a uniform supplied by the employer to be worn, there are seldom issues raised about reasonableness, unless the “uniform” puts the employee in an embarrassing position – such as overly skimpy outfits for bar attendants.

While constraints do not exist to the same degree in non-unionized workplaces, reasonableness will still be a strong consideration in determining whether a dress code is enforceable. If an employee is dismissed for refusing to comply with an unreasonable dress code, a Court may find that because the rule relied on for dismissal was not reasonable, there was not cause for the dismissal.
There may be safety reasons behind a dress code. For example, it may be important or necessary to wear steel-toed safety boots, a hard hat, a butcher’s chain glove or other apparel necessary to protect against dangers or perils present in the workplace or associated with the job. Provided the requirements can be explained by the circumstances of the job and the workplace, a dress code involving or requiring safety-related clothing items should be enforceable.

Some employers require employees to wear a uniform. The reasons include business identity and ensuring consistency throughout the workforce. The uniform might include components considered necessary for the job or the workplace, for the safety of the worker or for reasons of hygiene, for example head covering or hair restraint for food service workers.

A significant issue in this regard is, can the employer force the worker to pay for all or part of the uniform? If specific attire has been determined by the employer, is it then appropriate for the employer to provide that attire? On the other hand, it may be reasonable to require the employee to care for the items, and return them on termination of employment.

Beyond the question of a uniform, the employer may stipulate the nature of attire that is required, or not permitted. For example, a professional office environment could require business suits or jackets and ties for men, and business suits, dress slacks, or skirts or dresses for women. Alternatively, jeans, T-shirts, sweat shirts and shorts might not be allowed.

The nature of the workplace, the obligation to have contact or work with clients or others, or the expectations of clients or others doing business with or having contact with the employer may influence or determine the nature of attire required or expected. In such cases, where the response to those influences is reasonable, a dress code will likely be enforceable.

With any dress code, if the rules or requirements result in discrimination, a duty to accommodate the affected employee(s) arises. Generally, dress codes or uniforms that have no safety component or rationale are easily capable of modification to accommodate an individual. In our increasingly diverse society and community, the opportunities to accommodate increase correspondingly. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that if required clothing has a health and safety purpose, it may be a reasonable occupational requirement. Further, to be such a requirement, it must be honestly imposed and be in the interests of the performance of the work. Even in such a circumstance, efforts must be made to accommodate an employee in some manner where appropriate.

In summary, an employer can utilize its management rights prerogative to introduce a dress code to the workplace, provided it is reasonable, in accord with the needs and standards surrounding the job and the business, and provides opportunities for accommodation as required by human rights considerations. A dress code that meets these tests and considerations should be enforceable.

kartikeya posted:

It's not that your opinion is 'wrong', it's that you're a very very aggressive idiot.

DFW posted:

I'm respecting you enough here to give you what I believe is the straight truth. In this country, SWE is perceived as the dialect of education and intelligence and power and prestige, and anybody of any race, ethnicity, religion, or gender who wants to succeed in American culture has got to be able to use SWE. This is How It Is. You can be glad about it or sad about it or deeply pissed off. You can believe it's racist and unjust and decide right here and now to spend every waking minute of your adult life arguing against it, and maybe you should, but I'll tell you something: If you ever want those arguments to get listened to and taken seriously, you're going to have to communicate them in SWE, because SWE is the dialect our country uses to talk to itself. African Americans who've become successful and important in U.S. culture know this; that's why King's and X's and Jackson's speeches are in SWE, and why Morrison's and Angelou's and Baldwin's and Wideman's and West's books are full of totally rear end-kicking SWE, and why black judges and politicians and journalists and doctors and teachers communicate professionally in SWE. Some of these people grew up in homes and communities where SWE was the native dialect, and these black people had it much easier in school, but the ones who didn't grow up with SWE realized at some point that they had to learn it and become able to write in it, and so they did.

Dalael posted:

http://burgesslawoffice.com/blog/dress-code-in-the-workplace/


Things are just different here I guess.

negromancer posted:

white veterans freak out when the government tries to help them

Dalael posted:

Your country is just loving weird.
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe things are just so much different in Canada where I live

kartikeya posted:

I'll elaborate a little. You seem to see something you disagree with, and then write a whole bunch of angry sounding posts about it. Since a lot of your objections seem to come from ignorance ('I've never seen that' etc), this compounds the issue. And then you dig your heels in when people point out why it's ignorant. Thus, you get dogpiled.

On this issue specifically, yes, things are different in Canada (though not...as much as you'd probably like, of course, Canada has a lot of its own issues with race). And if you're not a black lady living in the States, you probably haven't heard about the absolute nonsense people throw around regarding their hair. As for the slang specifically attributable to the black community? It's not a coincidence that the bullshit people complain about in these memes commonly comes from the same source: Rap music, saggy pants, etc etc etc.

VitalSigns posted:

I mean I am not trying to start a slapfight here, but maybe you should ask people living in other countries about their experiences and about what their country is like so you know what you're talking about instead of just assuming everywhere is just like Canada and flying off the handle accusing people of imagining things.

Mr. Belding posted:

Re: Standard Written English. The fact of the matter is that the words and style one uses to communicate affect how that person's ideas are received. There is not a "right" or "wrong" but if one wants their communication to achieve a given result there are more or less effective ways to communicate. And the form of communication that is taken seriously in the broader Anglo world by people who are powerful is standard written English. It is a safe way to open any dialog, especially written ones, and at worst it comes off as overly formal or pretentious.

I think David Foster Wallace put it best:

Dalael posted:

Your country is just loving weird.
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe things are just so much different in Canada where I live, because I see black women wear whatever hairstyle they want and nobody cares.
I think we even have a law that allows people to wear clothes/hairstyle how they want it and employers can't say poo poo about it. I'll try and look it up.

socialsecurity posted:

So wait you aren't even in America yet feel the need to comment on American racism with authority?

Defenestration posted:

Dalael posted:

It reminds me when some idiot was saying that using "Calling a spade a spade" was racist because of yadiyadiyada. Its just plain ridiculous and it virtually insures that racism will never go away.

Jurgan posted:

Dalael posted:

You're both right. I'll make an effort to change that.

coyo7e posted:

Yeah, you really don't wanna say poo poo like that in my neighborhood. It's not safe.

I was showing my neighbor how to do some painting methods on his competitive lowrider models and I mentioned "it's so easy a monkey can do it" and it was a loving record scratch moment like you wouldn't believe. I grew up saying it without ever thinking about it but used around a different audience - holy poo poo it was pretty clear how it was instantly absorbed, even without mindful intention behind it. If you can't respect those around you and their realties - then that's on you. You are simply a lovely example of a human being.

If you lived in a neighborhood that was mostly black I suspect that you wouldn't be saying "call a spade a spade" very often - because that poo poo just ain't about shovels man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule