IYou fly a lot. You type it in your browser one day, and William Shatner is violating a young boy. Come to find out, their new slogan is, "We won't **** you in the *** like priceline."
Dude! I friggin WANT that T-Shirt!
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
IYou fly a lot. You type it in your browser one day, and William Shatner is violating a young boy. Come to find out, their new slogan is, "We won't **** you in the *** like priceline."
Your examples are silly, but OK. Also,what was shown wasn't "blackface". I thought we covered that already.
I could always count on you to see me as something other than an angry black guy!![]()
Of course it was silly. That's the only way (apparently) I can put it on your level. And their faces are painted jet black. They may not be in a play, or a film, but you look at that picture, and you see white guys in blackface.
If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. Like I said before, that image is quite appalling. Until it isn't anymore, it just is.
I don't exactly get why this is so bad.
Neither do I. How is this considered "appalling"?
They're great when you can find 'em.
I guess context and an explanation aren't good enough for you. OK.
That's being unreasonable.
Your examples are silly, but OK. Also,what was shown wasn't "blackface". I thought we covered that already.
I said 'If you don't get it, you don't get it," because you said that you don't get it. Wasn't meant as an insult. I tried to explain how it is appalling to many people, and you're not seeing the connection. So that's fine. But until it is no longer appalling to a whole lot of people, it just is. The wounds from this particular phenomena are too fresh.
"I don't get it" meaning in this particular instance, there shouldn't be a reason for outrage. Yes, there will always be someone pissed off by some image somewhere. I think someone else made that point earlier in the thread. Not everything can or should be sanitized to the point that it offends no one. I still contend that you're reaching mightily to be offended by this. Be offended. I really don't care. Sure, I understand why some could find that particular image offensive, but a truly reasonable person will easily see past the image and understand that it was a couple of fans dressing up as their favorite rugby player. You disagree. No biggie.
macaroni tony said:How did you mean that? I wasn't pissed until this little ditty came out. There is no need for you to be insulting.
Why did you assume that was about anyone in particular? Don't assume. But again, if you choose to be pissed off by it, be my guest.
EDIT: Tony has now edited his post above to include more quotes from me, so what I'm responding to here ^ will seem out of context. What I'm referring to here ^ is where I stated reasonable people are great if you can find them. That was directed at no one in particular. It was simply a statement. The other quotes he has now added certainly were directed at him. They were not insults. They were my observations of his responses.
Of course it was silly. That's the only way (apparently) I can put it on your level. And their faces are painted jet black. They may not be in a play, or a film, but you look at that picture, and you see white guys in blackface.
If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. Like I said before, that image is quite appalling to a very large faction of people. Until it isn't anymore, it just is.
Their faces are painted black, but this is not BLACKFACE, which specifically refers to the stereotyped caricature of a black person.
There is none of that here. It is 2 guys dressing up like their favorite player.
I can understand it being "appauling" to people that saw the pic for the first time without context, but with context, no reasonable person would consider it racist in any way.
Their faces are painted black, but this is not BLACKFACE, which specifically refers to the stereotyped caricature of a black person.
There is none of that here. It is 2 guys dressing up like their favorite player.
I can understand it being "appauling" to people that saw the pic for the first time without context, but with context, no reasonable person would consider it racist in any way.
I don't get the William Shatner analogy, seems way too extreme. But it does provide some insight into how you think, which is why you said you used it.
-Mike
That's all I wanted
Horny Toad, here is my end all be all to this whole thing
![]()
Question: Has anyone ever heard of BROWN paint?! Is there no brown paint in Australia?! SNL has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. There were skits where Billy Crystal did a Sammy Davis, Jr. impression, complete with brown makeup. In another skit, Crystal and Christopher Guest were made up as old Negro Leagues baseball players. No big, angry protests ensued. Why? Because they actually looked and sounded like real black people! Blackface represents decades of oppression and ridicule, period. Eddie Murphy playing a white character does not.
if it is a large enough faction of people, and it is something that truly represents who they are, and what they ask is not unreasonable (like hire black actors for the play instead of painting the white ones black, or choose a different winner for the airline ticket contest), then they are not asking too much.
Of course it was silly. That's the only way (apparently) I can put it on your level. And their faces are painted jet black. They may not be in a play, or a film, but you look at that picture, and you see white guys in blackface.
If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. Like I said before, that image is quite appalling to a very large faction of people. Until it isn't anymore, it just is.
I find your introduction of a watermelon into the thread to be incredibly racist.![]()