ext_370466 (
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2011-07-07 02:48 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
Even more Wankery that we find acceptable...
While I generally disagree with his politics I think Mr. Savage raises an excellent point.
Now consider this...
Bill Maher and NYT's David Carr the "Middle Places" and "Low-Sloping Foreheads".
I apologise for linking as I seem to be having trouble embedding the video.
Now I would assume that both men in the second video consider themselves to be reasonably intelligent and enlightened men. If accused of being racist or bigoted I would imagine that they would be properly offended.
Which is why I'm going to ask an uncomfortable question, why is it ok to disparage one socio-political/ethnic class as stupid, dangerous, useless, ect... but not another. Would his comments have been more or less offensive had he been talking about "Fags" "Twats" "Spics" "Wops" "Chinks" or *Gasp* "N*ggers"?
Discuss.
no subject
Where is the dividing line?
no subject
no subject
no subject
When you abstract it to the point where it could mean anyone then it is not offensive to any particular subset of people.
no subject
no subject
I'd say that residents of the fly-over AKA "stupid" states qualifies as a category.
Imagine if I were to go on TV and say "All (insert your ethnic group here) are ignorant mouth-breathers", or "all people from (insert your home town's name here) are arrogant pricks and should just shut-up and do what they're told"
Are you saying that this would not be in the least bit offensive to you or someone you know?