If you believe that how people dress and speak defines their worthiness as a human being (and it seems you do) then go along your own way.
I do not.
If you believe that how people dress and speak defines their worthiness as a human being (and it seems you do) then go along your own way.
I do not.
There's a difference between identity and affectation. When your affectation conflates "acting black" (as if that's even a thing one can do) with "acting moronic", your affectation is intrinsically racist. And when you willfully adopt a racist affectation because despite being a Yale/Stanford Law grad you're apparently incapable of understanding how fucking offensive that is, I am not obligated to show you one single iota of respect.
These guys don't represent anyone but themselves, and—of late—they're doing a poor job of it.
(btw — I think Rap Genius is a great product. I hope its founders don't ruin it.)
Stop insinuating that I don't understand you. I understand you, I just disagree with you.
>> There's a difference between identity and affectation. When your affectation conflates "acting black" (as if that's even a thing one can do) with "acting moronic", your affectation is intrinsically racist.
Do you think that they believe they are acting moronically?
Or is this perception of moronic behaviour your own? If it's the latter - which I expect it is - then you are projecting racism onto them. It's not something which is intrinsic - it requires the perceiver to have your value system.
(My perception is that they are not acting like morons. And that it's all just good fun.)
The problem I have with this whole argument is that even if a guy had a popped collar, was wearing dark sunglasses inside and kept saying everything was "baller", I'd prefer him infinitely over the guy that looked at him and declared him to be "moronic" and a "douchebag" because of his style. One is harmless but the other is something which to me signifies a close-minded asshole.
Your assertions are objectively false.
You also suggested that the negative reaction to the objectionable behavior of the Rap Genius founders is in fact not a reaction to specific behavior by specific individuals, but part of an "undercurrent of hatred for baller/rap/black (so-called 'douchebag') culture". I don't even know what to do with that.
>>The problem I have with this whole argument is that even if a guy had a popped collar, was wearing dark sunglasses inside and kept saying everything was "baller", I'd prefer him infinitely over the guy that looked at him and declared him to be "moronic" and a "douchebag"
Good for you. I know plenty of black folks who wouldn't.
I didn't say anything about people saying stupid shit. A negative statement like that would be inconsistent with the rest of my argument.
I also didn't say that they were douchebags. I said "(so-called "douchebag")" which is a british word to show that you believe a term is unsuitable and not correct [0] also I said: "I think that people recognise the style as douchebag because it's uncomfortable for them to see white people "acting black"." I was implying that it was just a term which people use to describe a behaviour that they do not like for classist/racist reasons but which allows them to dodge allegations as such.
>> You further asserted that the primary objection to "'wigger' culture" (wow) is that white people "acting black" makes other white people uncomfortable.
Yes. I believe there is a heck of a lot of underlying racism there - and that we're seeing the same thing here.
>> Good for you. I know plenty of black folks who wouldn't.
Who am I to take away somebody's right to be a dick or offended?
I don't want to continue arguing anyway - my core point was that we shouldn't judge books by their covers: there are plenty of people that speak differently and wear very different clothes from both you and me and we should allow them to be and (in the case of the OP, instead of RapGenius) actively include them in our own culture.
[0] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/so-called