- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Black Santa
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Black Santa | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 3 2016, 11:23 PM (2,448 Views) | |
| * Sousen Ichimonji | Dec 4 2016, 02:53 AM Post #16 |
You are calm and reposed, let your beauty unfold
|
I feel like people use the term 'political agenda' in place of 'cultural development' a lot because when you call something a part of a political agenda it sounds more insidious, like it's step 17 of a 62 step plan for world domination. It's not, it's just a bunch of non-white people wanting to feel like they have even the most marginal of places in iconography of a holiday that is part of the fabric of western society. |
 Call me a safe bet, I'm betting I'm not I'm glad that you can forgive, only hoping as time goes, you can forget | |
 |
 
|
| Tinny | Dec 4 2016, 03:14 AM Post #17 |
 
|
It is absolutely a reaction against that sort of thing I imagine, that does not change that it also gives legitimacy to these movements, and it does not change that there is an uptick in these sort of things. Plenty of people have perfectly understandable reasons for voting Trump based on the information they receive, but we don't live in a bubble, and Trump getting elected the way he did sends more messages than just "stop shaming whites." For those who saw his hateful rhetoric it sends the message that this is acceptable, for those who saw Clinton winning the popular vote it tells them their vote does not matter, for those who hated having a minority president it tells them they're back to white men leading instead of n*****s and women, and yes, for some it means that the working class still has a voice. But that doesn't erase the negative consequences of this nor does it mean we should ignore those consequences in favor trying to be more tolerant, hell I don't see why we can't do both. I wish I had your optimism for America, at minimum there's certainly more people believing it's okay to be racist and expressing their racial supremacy nonsense, and frankly there should be a push back to this and saying "Yes, Jews are people, yes black people are capable of being kind, yes hispanics can have something to offer a community instead of taco trucks and stabbings, yes you are a person, yes minorities can be good" and providing role models for minorities that at the very least tell them they're allowed to be good people, as strange a sentence as that is. It's not going to change anything major on it's own, but it does help plant an idea in the heads of any children who go see him that Santa can be black, and can be just as nice and kind and loving as any other race of Santa. It's not going to make sweeping political change, but it will raise their awareness about other races (which is a thing that needs to be done), and perhaps for some minorities particularly African Americans, help raise their self esteem, and I think that's valuable enough on it's own. The protesters may have a right to dislike this, but I have my doubts about a white child having to deal with the struggle of having no one he can call a role model that at least broadly looks like him. For this action I can only see good, at least enough to outweigh people not disliking that Santa's race has been suddenly changed. As for inciting more anger, if Santa being black is enough to encourage even more hateful racist behavior or even violence, I don't think that person in question was in any way mentally balanced enough that they wouldn't have reacted the same way if they saw a video game featuring a black woman. We already elected Trump, I think it's safe to say that among the other messages, one has been sent saying people don't like being shamed or called racists. It's not a full and complete answer, but as I see it, every bit of racial awareness and and every bit of encouragement of racial relations (as in Blacks and whites are both people and some "other") helps. I certainly don't think it'll feel that small towards the kids who sit Santa's lap and tell them what they want for Christmas.
Maybe, but the person judging Trump isn't Mexican, and judges are generally supposed to avoid cases in which they'd be biased. Again he was born in Chicago, Indiana, he only has Mexican heritage and parents, and considering that Trump has had Hispanic people on his campaign staff I think he should be aware that Hispanics can think either way on this. But if we need another example right here, My father is from Latin America and my grandmother is also from Latin America, and I feel no allegiance or loyalty to any of those countries. Not Mexico, not Guatemala, not Costa Rica, not Nicaragua, not Panama, not El Salvador, and not Honduras. Whether Trump means to send the message is irrelevant, it sends the message anyway, we do not get to chose what message we send out, we only intend to send a specific one and hope it's the one that reaches the most people, or at least the ones that matter to us, all we can do is make sure we don't send the wrong message, and as President, he should be doing everything in his power to ensure he sends the right message in every public action he takes. Everything he says has implications, be they intentional or not. Edited by Tinny, Dec 4 2016, 03:18 AM.
|
 Above signature created by Graffiti 
| |
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 4 2016, 03:36 AM Post #18 |
 
|
 Black Jesus is a thing already and has been for centuries, Black Santa would be nothing strange. Edited by lazerbem, Dec 4 2016, 03:36 AM.
|
 Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
| Dankness Lava | Dec 4 2016, 04:26 AM Post #19 |
Dankness Forever
|
I don't even know why anyone cares |
| |
|
|
|
| + QueenTD | Dec 4 2016, 05:15 AM Post #20 |
My Dear Melancholy,
|
To be fair. Last year was hot as Satan's ballsacks on Xmas. Global warming burnt Santa's skin and made him a Hershey kiss. But fr I see why people might be "shocked" by it as a comic book fan. I hate when they change the color or gender of the character. But I don't see a big issues seeing as everyone dresses up as Santa always so they could just go up the street to see Santa. Besides...I grew up with a Black Santa cause at my Wal Mart that's all they sold because white Santas sold out in November. |
 Spoiler: click to toggle
| |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 4 2016, 05:36 AM Post #21 |
|
Why would they do it if not to send a message? It's not like only a black guy turned up for the job; they specifically wanted a black guy to do it. So much so that they made an announcement for him getting the role. I'm not saying he could't remain completely impartial, I'm saying Trump's comment far more blatantly comes from a place of circumstance, not blatant racism. Even with what Tinny said, Trump thinks the man's possible allegiances will go against him. I'm not saying whether they're founded or unfounded, I'm saying the nature of his comment isn't one of racism, but the circumstance. I'm sure it might be nice for them, if kids young enough to believe in Santa, from a society that has some black and some white people doing this and that, actually care that the guy that lives in the North Pole making presents for them if they behave is white. It's the adults that care about these racial politics, and some adults want a change and some don't. You're right that they won't have to go far to find a white Santa, and I bet there have been plenty of black Santas over the decades, but it's a near sacred symbol to some people, isn't it, and they're announcing an intentional change for it. If Walmart announced it's going to be featuring a Santa with a leather, biker's jacket, I reckon they'd be voicing at least nearly as much outrage. You see "cultural development" where others see "the changing of a beloved icon to better suit someone else". Is it selfish to not want to see it changed when it might make others happy? Yes, but so is it selfish on the part of those wanting something changed when doing so might make others unhappy. It undoubtedly sends what you see as a positive message and a good change—they wouldn't do this if it wasn't to send a message in some way—therefore there is an agenda. Whether you agree with it or not, there's an agenda. They're not doing it for aesthetic reasons, are they? Now, I get that message, and I don't think it's a bad one, but people aren't wrong for disliking it. They're wrong for saying racist things, obviously. Though, what would you think of a minority of Europeans living and raised in Japan if they had modified a local temple to house a European Buddha? Do you think the Japanese would be wrong if they despised it? Would you champion their right to representation in a predominately Asian culture? It appears unsolvable, then. Minorities and their advocates in the majority doing things that upsets the rest of the majority causes the rest of the majority to do things that upset the minorities and their fellow majorities. The answer to that is to keep doing things that upset the rest of the majority to send a positive message to the minorities, which puts us right back at the beginning again. America was on a really good path, it seems, with people of all races, creeds, and sexualities already equally as free to achieve major success, and with their tolerance of others becoming even more mainstream. Until the Left became completely intolerant. Now you have Trump as president, and a great many people appear to think it means they need to double down in their intolerance of the thoughts and concerns of anyone that disagrees with them, or just keep pushing things they don't like in their face. That's all I can really say in this black Santa's relation to other current events, and why I don't think it's an answer to it in any way. Why it bothers people are unrelated, but how it will bother them aren't. If it's black role-models children need, there are a plethora of them in the limelight. They have proof that they can be billionaire talkshow hosts, world famous singers and actors, athletes, a president, and anything else white people can be. They have as much proof as anyone else that they can be successful at anything. Yeah, but I don't think Santa is a role model anyway. He's just some guy that's supposed to be real, and brings kids happiness in the form of presents. If we share a culture, and supposedly believe in the same things, isn't a shared identity of who Santa is and what he's supposed to be preferable? If for no other reason, it's why I would advocate Jesus the Jew over white Jesus. It's much more accurate, and gives them a shared icon that's fairly decided upon. What's the point of Santa if he's not supposed to be a someone, but a something so infinitely malleable as to please whoever that we may as well say he's your parents? It's a separate but related issue, though, isn't it. They don't like being shamed or called racists, and they don't like their beloved icons being changed to better suit someone that isn't them. They might as well ask for the world, I know. Yeah, but it's every bit as stupid as white Jesus. It's obvious why people do it, but it doesn't mean it was ever a good idea. Edited by Sandy Shore, Dec 4 2016, 06:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
| * Mitas | Dec 4 2016, 04:38 PM Post #22 |
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
|
The only part that annoys me is changing the race of a longstanding character, just like it would if they made a black character white, or a male character female etc, but I get why they're doing it (plus, I'm sure there have been plenty of 'black Santas' throughout mall and TV history, and wherever else you see depictions of Santa, so it's not exactly a new thing). Side point: is this cultural appropriation, considering Santa's origins are in 'white culture'? |
 "Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Dec 4 2016, 08:34 PM Post #23 |
 
|
This seems incredibly disingenuous. The far right has always been the most intolerant part of the country (and any country for that matter). The KKK, restricting marriage rights, against anti-discriminatory laws passed by the left (Trump himself has constantly violated such laws 1 2 3 4, follow up), etc. I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly when you say the left suddenly becoming completely intolerant. Are you comparing unemployed liberal arts majors (because these have always exist. See: hippie) that have nothing better to do than shout at people on the street to the intolerance of the not-so-subtle KKK? I've seen this stance before, and I feel like it's mainly anger because the extreme left is a bit more subtle with "intolerance" while the far right is much more overt. I definitely see what people say with the radical left but it isn't comparable with the now emboldened far right. The right has it's own way of doing the same type of censorship that hasn't been taken as seriously until Trump got elected since everyone already knew their overt position.
This is a far right candidate from the 2012 primaries who won a good amount of states. Ann Coulter (another far right speaker) also said she wanted to head the FFC if Trump won, presumably to get out her own political agenda. Trump's campaign has also created a state like media for his supporters. He's convinced them that the media is incredibly biased, and that they should be completely intolerant of any information that goes against him or other far right stances. Mark Cuban explains this far more eloquently than I can on his blog.
The idea that people should fundamentally not be intolerant of ideas is also flawed. After the fall of Nazi Germany the sentiment for Nazism never really died out. It would constantly resurface and only intolerance to the ideology is what would suppress it. Yes, suppressing an idea or thought on a legal level is a bad idea. But speaking out against something that feels like it goes against your moral fiber is not only ok, but is also your responsibility. Edited by Mihawk, Dec 4 2016, 08:39 PM.
|
 | |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 4 2016, 10:27 PM Post #24 |
|
The far-right has for the longest time been on the periphery. They've had no credibility, been a running joke, and the vast majority of people hardly tolerate them. Laughable Jerry Springer nonsense, for the most part. The problem with the modern left is they've started tarring virtually anyone with, what they deem to be, a disagreeable voice, as every bit as bad as the actual far-right, the actual racists and ruffians, in order to shut them up and cheaply win discussion. Even if they're, quite literally, right. Silencing people from speaking out against injustice through fear of being labelled racists - as most notably happened in the UK in regards to highly prolific grooming gangs being left untouched. They are the ones legitimising a more extreme position on the Apart from slurs, they've been no-platforming and disrupting countless events where civil discussion and debate is the intended goal, simply because they don't like what someone has to say. So absurd is it that even black people who say there is no racism in a given event are treated to the racism of being called an "Uncle Tom", or an "oreo", and apostates that speak out against the horrors of Islam are, too, irrationally labelled Islamaphobes—even this US spellcheck doesn't think that's an actual word—and thus barred from speaking at certain events. This is the acceptable, hip, rational, moral position to take it seems. They b*** and moan about violent, immoral sexism they invent in the West, but defend the oppression of woman in darker skinned countries because morality is supposedly relative to culture, and any mention of it or their hypocrisy makes someone a gross bigot. Desperate to see racism where there is none, and desperate to defend "the other" in events where they wouldn't be caught dead defending a member within the majority should they be faced with the same issue or behave in the same way. That would far too passé for them, one would imagine. So dishonest and/or deluded can they be, you actually had a president that literally said ISIS had nothing whatever to do with Islam. Can you imagine that? Well, thanks to him, you don't have to. Of course, he had an agenda for spouting this obvious lie—and it doesn't come from a malicious place, no—but people are fed up with such blatant nonsense, and being told they can't mention it. Rational people with rational concerns and questions. Instead of admitting any fault in this, they'd rather knuckle down, and get more extreme in their opposition to people's thoughts and concerns - which I don't see getting them anywhere but the other side further dragging their knuckles in response. As for all the racist graffiti, I'm reminded of events like this. So little faith in the honesty of the left, I'm afraid I'm left wondering what percentage of it is probably the result of people doing it themselves to, quite literally, paint the Trump victory as even more horrific than it really is. Until minorities are attacked in the streets or in their homes at a decent percentage more than they would have been any other year, or people are on tape insulting someone for being black, I'm not convinced actual racism is on the rise. Trump could only convince them of a media bias because people have for years now felt that there is a strong media bias. People from the UK talk about and perceive a bias from the left, too, and Trump has no way of convincing them or affecting them with his own claims of it. I never said the left should tolerate actual racism and violence, or accept any idea uttered, but they appear to a great many people to have become the embodiment of intolerance. The refusal to debate issues, and their going after freedom of speech is painful evidence of their fascist like mentality. Yeesh, you sound like a pretentious vegan. A member of the BNP and National Front I may be, but I myself am not right-winged, if that's what you've been lead to believe. I'm not interested in aligning myself cult-like to one side, and am not at all opposed to the left or the things it fundamentally stands for, but the absurdity and problem with it shouldn't be ignored. The problems of the actual far-right still go without saying. |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Dec 5 2016, 04:02 AM Post #25 |
|
My point is that what you're referring to can easily just be considered the far left. It'd be fundamentally wrong to say that the left is correct on every issue. Too often the far right is represented by the extremes of their group, and the same I'd say is what you're doing to the left. this example would put all your examples that you've said so far to shame. There's no statistical data to show that the far right or left are worse than each other (although I'm willing to bet there are more extreme examples with the right). Might be interesting to look intothis. As for shutting down conversation with extreme words I also guarantee that's something both sides do. For example
This kind of thing just shuts people up because they don't know enough on the topic to contribute. More importantly nobody wants to be caught on the opposite side arguing against something like rape and the conversation ends up going nowhere. The topic at hand is something that requires an incredible amount of specific knowledge of the situation and the laymen are forced to pick two options: anti-racist and anti-rape. These two buzzwords are so strong that it's hard for anyone to take an in between stance being against both. The result is the further polarization of our society towards the left and right where both spectrums were the culprit desperately trying to claw people to either side. The solution to this kind of thing is to always be gender, race, religion (+reference to what you said about Obama) neutral when you tackle an issue. Admittedly, the left has not been race or gender neutral at all and that costed them heavily this election cycle in the US with white male voters. People might not like it but #AllLivesMatter with a focus on police accountability, but that would be better rather than telling them to stop being racist. It's a pragmatic and honest solution - but the left and right may not like the approach because there is no longer a villain (or if there is, the villain is foreign to us). With a villain everything is much more simple, and for the most part people prefer it when the problem and villain are clear cut. If the leader doesn't make the solution easy and simple then he's being PC and probably a demon. Alternative? Let's get someone who makes all our problems simple and easy by talking in small chunks, making it clear who the enemies are. I started before this election as a centrist probably a bit right leaning, but the outright stupidity from the election cycle kind brought me in to the left's fold. That said I try my best to always be a referee rather than one who takes a slice of cake from either party whenever I can.
Does this Trump supporter help? edit: Also not allowing people to speak at certain events is also not a restriction of speed; rather, it's a usage of freedom of expression. Despite what you may hear from the alt-right about their misused understanding of freedom of speech, their being banned at university does not violate any civil or social liberties (see: Nazism from prior post). Edited by Mihawk, Dec 5 2016, 04:40 AM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 5 2016, 07:16 AM Post #26 |
|
That's it, though, the majority on the left have been almost invariably tarring the entirety of the right with the same brush as its extremes; calling them "Islamaphobes", xenophobes, and racists for a while now, when attempting to discuss things like religion, culture, and immigration. For about two decades, in the UK. I read or saw such implications or outright accusations constantly through-out the referendum and in regards to Trump and anti-illegal immigration supporters. It doesn't appear to be the extremes of the left making these accusations, but run-of-the-mill lefties. Douglas Murray sums up quite nicely the damage and prevalence of these tactics here, when it's suggested that speaking up against child-groomers of a certain background is "brave". No, no; the death of Jo Cox—by a single nut-job, that no one failed to condemn and briefly attempted to condemn half of the country along with him—is unquestionably a bad thing, but it is incomparable to a thousand-or-two girls getting molested, drugged, and gang raped because people were scared of offending or themselves being vilified. I'm not having a go at you, I am just saying. I'm not attempting to shame or shut down, or even stump any opposition with the buzz-word game; I'm just making a point of a particular problem regarding the left. Feel free to get stuck in to it - I'm not about to start accusing anyone of being themselves in support of it, and was just pointing out that the left's particular brand of politics allowed such a thing to happen, and is the sort of thing that's therefore responsible for a hard push against it. I say left, because it doesn't appear to be the extremes. The left has plenty of crazy weirdos, and the right Trumps them in violence and racism, no doubt, but I feel the current state of the left overall is the reason the right is on the rise in the first place, giving legitimacy and a feeling of necessity to it, and perhaps even its extremes—if they are getting more extreme—and is emerging as a truly damaging force. I don't think the left has been neutral in regards to Islam (religion). They haven't at all welcomed honest and free discussion of it, and have been throwing others under the bus to protect it at all costs. Making up blatant lies (ISIS having nothing to do with Islam) and protecting those lies under the ever looming threat of defamation. Well, I did say it just needs to be on video, and I don't want to be seen as moving the goal post, but I did also say just before that bit in regards to violence, that I'm looking for something that suggests it's on the rise, not just that it happens - which it obviously does. I should have specified on that, too. Perhaps such incidents have actually increased, though, and I'm not defending him, either. He's clearly out of order. Do you not think, though, that his particular support of someone like Trump, and his act of blatant racism, could have anything to do with Black Lives Matter, who are seemingly well condoned by people of the left, perhaps? He's clearly got a chip on his shoulder about them. On the subject of Black Lives Matter, I saw an interesting video the other week that touches on it: this. Maybe what that Larry Elder has to say is worthy of its own topic, but I was struck by the host's desperation to assert that there is racism at play, for no other reason than that he feels he should. He had nothing to give in regards to where or why certain things are racist, but just kept on that it is "because", basically. That's another troubling attitude. Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Surely refusing someone on the grounds that you don't like what they say is in direct breach of this. And, we're not even talking about actual racists or violent individuals, but the likes of Maryam Namazie, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Because their opinion upsets them; its pathetic and childish, if not wrong, and every bit as likely to inspire an anti-left sentiment - what I've been saying such antics achieve. I've said quite enough in this topic, haven't I? Blegh. Edited by Sandy Shore, Dec 5 2016, 04:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Dec 5 2016, 05:46 PM Post #27 |
|
I don't think we're gonna get anywhere here so I'll just go back to my first point: Do you think polarization might be an issue for our societies? If the left and right keep overreacting to each other, then we'll just live in a society of extreme left and right when they juggle in and out of power. The Democratic party in the US is already being reformed to a progressive party while everyone can see the populist takeover of the Republican party. Without pointing specific fingers, I think something needs to be done about it. Also just feel the need to say this. This is the US of f***ing A, we don't give a s*** about what some dweeb from an irrelevant organization wrote. ~ Irrelevant comment, carry on |
|
| |
|
|
|
| + Son-Goku | Dec 5 2016, 06:44 PM Post #28 |
孫悟空
|
Santa was made up by people who were white so he has always been visualized as white. I don't see the point of changing something like that. But if people want to make black versions of Santa or say Santa is black, go for it. Don't really care. |
 RP Character Bios Dragon Ball Super: The Super Human Dragon Ball Super: Preparation for the Tournament of Power | |
|
|
|
| Goddess Ultimecia | Dec 5 2016, 06:57 PM Post #29 |
 
|
Wasn't St.Nicholas born in Turkey anyway? |
 NinjaSushi Colouring
| |
|
|
|
| * Mitas | Dec 5 2016, 07:38 PM Post #30 |
|
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
|
Yeah, but to a Greek family. Not sure where that puts his ethnicity. Although Saint Nicholas only served as inspiration, so his ethnicity isn't really important (not that Santa's is). |
|
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:41 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy