Please join me in eliminating this word from the Shark Pool/Board (1 Viewer)

[Gottabesweet]

But they’re right. It is racist to assume all Mexicans like spicy food.

and at the same time when I’m working my booth I *frequently* have customers say things like “man; I’m Mexican! Gimme the hottest you got!” when I ask them how hot they like their hot sauce. 

It’s a subtle difference. Someone from that culture might make a sweeping generalization about their own culture. That’s not the same as you making a sweeping generalization about their culture. 

Heck, there might even be a cultural pride for a person of Latin descent in being able to handle extremely spicy food. That still doesn’t make it ok for someone outside of their culture to assert that’s the case. 

many racial stereotypes have hints of truth to them, which is why we have this double edged sword of “who’s allowed” to use those terms or make those generalizations. Intent and context matter. 

my response to those customers is usually, “well I didn’t want to racially profile you”, and we share a laugh about it. And it’s also true.

And some Italians might get mad if you ask them if they know how to make sauce. And some might not.

None of this means the world is soft. It means we should collectively work on our approach to cultural differences and avoid making assumptions about people based on race or culture. 

I don’t think there right and many also agree that it’s not racist. We can’t start generalizing everything.  Spanish people aren’t the only people that make or eat spicy foods.  Yes they have a history of it.  Asking such a question isn’t racist it never will be, it’s harmless and some generalization that come from a good place are fine.  You either answer yes or no.  
Is asking a white person if they like burger and fries racist?  We as a culture look more and more for reasons to be butt-hurt.  
 

It’s the cancel culture. Every day people wake up and go to twitter etc and see what they can be offended by today. Including this post. One day it’s Santa Claus should be a women and then when that dies down it’s changing team names and when the Indians get changed it’ll be a constant trickle down effect on everything. I’m jumping all over the place here but it’s extremely frustrating what this world has become.  
 

Last year a Christmas song changed because it said “have another drink” or something like that.  
 

 

[Concept Coop]

Maybe we shouldn’t insult each other like that regardless of the word used.

I largely agree with you there. I use language with my friends that I wouldn’t use in most settings. I don’t expect everyone to share my sense of humor, but won’t be shamed for it either, so long as the audience shares it. But yeah, don’t bully people. 

 

[drunkb]

I am dumb and didn't even make the playoffs this year. Is it OK if I rip on myself?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I do like the stock market analogy and it has gotten my creativity flowing for a revamped Exploit/Avoid thread mixed with a stock market approach. Having "Shares" of Berkshire, I guess the Shark Pool can buy shares in say Aaron Rodgers, Inc? That makes a lot of sense. We need a Dow Jones 100...NFL 100 Index works.  Buying a player's production or stats seems logical. If you take Kamara No 2 overall, you're pretty heavily invested in him, right? 

There's a lot of good counterpoints that I read and I'm never afraid to acknowledge other viewpoints. 

"Shares" still implies a level of ownership. In the stock market, "shareholders" make up a collective of people who own something. If 100 people collectively owned a human being would that be morally, socially more acceptable than 1 person owning that human being? 

So it's equally problematic, if aesthetically softer to the ear/eye. 

If I were to change my own language from "own" I would probably just use "have" - as in "I have X player on my team" or "I have X player on many of my teams". The emphasis is on owning my team. Have implies their presence without the negative connotation. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don’t think there right and many also agree that it’s not racist.

Except that it is right, and that "many also agree" is an appeal to the masses fallacy. 

We can’t start generalizing everything.  Spanish people aren’t the only people that make or eat spicy foods.  Yes they have a history of it.

Actually Spanish people are generally spice averse. It's Latin American culture that embraces spicy food, and only a small % of equatorial Latin American countries at that 

Asking such a question isn’t racist it never will be, it’s harmless and some generalization that come from a good place are fine.  You either answer yes or no.  
Is asking a white person if they like burger and fries racist?  We as a culture look more and more for reasons to be butt-hurt.  

It is not racist to ask anyone if they like spicy food. The racism is insinuating that they do because of their race or culture. That's a big difference. 

And no - asking a white person if they like a burger & fries isn't racist, just like asking literally anyone that question isn't racist. The racism is assuming that they like burgers and fries because they're white. 

There's a difference between a benign question & a loaded question. Like targeting the Jamaican woman with a presumption that she knows how to make jerk chicken, or a Mexican with a presumption that they like spicy food. Both are inherently racist because of the presumption made associated with their respective races. 

It’s the cancel culture. Every day people wake up and go to twitter etc and see what they can be offended by today. Including this post. One day it’s Santa Claus should be a women and then when that dies down it’s changing team names and when the Indians get changed it’ll be a constant trickle down effect on everything. I’m jumping all over the place here but it’s extremely frustrating what this world has become.  
 

Last year a Christmas song changed because it said “have another drink” or something like that.  

And there it is. The boogeyman cancel culture, coming for all your fun. This is the sweeping generalization used as a defense mechanism by people who simply don't want to change their behavior or own the fact that some things they do are offensive. 

And it's bogus. Sorry. 

 

[Gally]

Unless you know someone personally, it is a weak attempt at an online dig. I don't know any of you folks in real life. I would deny it even if I did XOXO. You are free to say anything that you like. I try to choose my words wisely, but that doesn't mean that I am not permitted to say them. 

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.  I am not digging at anybody with my comment.  I am just pointing out that the reason many are using for not using a particular word is to look at it from the other perspective.  I am saying that if the word isn't used maliciously and was done innocently (like saying a own a football player because he is on my fake football team) then it is just as important to look at from the other side and the intent that was meant.  There are two sides to a conversation.  Both sides should be taken into account. 

 

[drunkb]

Intent is where words really matter.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.  I am not digging at anybody with my comment.  I am just pointing out that the reason many are using for not using a particular word is to look at it from the other perspective.  I am saying that if the word isn't used maliciously and was done innocently (like saying a own a football player because he is on my fake football team) then it is just as important to look at from the other side and the intent that was meant.  There are two sides to a conversation.  Both sides should be taken into account. 

Well said, and can be applied to a lot of issues/subjects.

and hey - at the end of that, you still might use the word “owner” for players on your team. It doesn’t make you a bad person and FF isn’t cancelled by the PC police.  

Just know that a % of people will cringe a little when they see it. 

I won’t, because in context I don’t see it as a big deal. But I’m also not going to lambaste anyone for taking offense to the word, as though they’re the reason everything is terrible in the world. They’re not overly sensitive, they’re appropriately sensitive to something they have a different opinion about. 

On a subject like that, there’s probably room for both opinions. For bigger issue offending language, maybe notsomuch. 
 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Intent is where words really matter.

Depends on the words, but in general, I agree. George Carlin would approve. 

 

[drunkb]

Do people get offended by limey (my mom is from the UK)? Do people get offended by dirty mick (my father and siblings are still there). Racist posts are not meant for a public fantasy football forum. That just makes no sense in what we are trying to accomplish as a team of friends. I am likely the biggest idiot on the forums. Take from that what you will.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Except that it is right, and that "many also agree" is an appeal to the masses fallacy. 

Actually Spanish people are generally spice averse. It's Latin American culture that embraces spicy food, and only a small % of equatorial Latin American countries at that 

It is not racist to ask anyone if they like spicy food. The racism is insinuating that they do because of their race or culture. That's a big difference. 

And no - asking a white person if they like a burger & fries isn't racist, just like asking literally anyone that question isn't racist. The racism is assuming that they like burgers and fries because they're white. 

There's a difference between a benign question & a loaded question. Like targeting the Jamaican woman with a presumption that she knows how to make jerk chicken, or a Mexican with a presumption that they like spicy food. Both are inherently racist because of the presumption made associated with their respective races. 

And there it is. The boogeyman cancel culture, coming for all your fun. This is the sweeping generalization used as a defense mechanism by people who simply don't want to change their behavior or own the fact that some things they do are offensive. 

And it's bogus. Sorry. 

Nah. 

 

[Gottabesweet]

Intent is where words really matter.

Exactly. Not this generalization trash from the cancel culture heros who sit and look for things to hurt their feelings or better yet a race or culture that THEY ARENT LOL. 

 

[drunkb]

Exactly. Not this generalization trash from the cancel culture heros who sit and look for things to hurt their feelings or better yet a race or culture that THEY ARENT LOL. 

How about this. We just don't use words that you wouldn't use in a store? I am not solving a problem, but it may be a good baseline.

 

[Gottabesweet]

How about this. We just don't use words that you wouldn't use in a store? I am not solving a problem, but it may be a good baseline.

Simple enough.   Can I ask the Apple employee if he owned Justin Herbert last night? 

 

[Gally]

But they’re right. It is racist to assume all Mexicans like spicy food.

and at the same time when I’m working my booth I *frequently* have customers say things like “man; I’m Mexican! Gimme the hottest you got!” when I ask them how hot they like their hot sauce. 

There is a big difference between assuming all Mexicans like spicy food and asking someone if they like spicy food.   This is where intent really is the most important thing in the usage of words or phrases.  I ask many different people whether or not they like spicy food and it has nothing to do with their ethnicity.  If I asked someone of Mexican decent if they like spicy foods it is not at all racist or demeaning.  It is a simple question to try and get to know someone.  I really have no idea why someone would take this question negatively.  

I think this is where the sensitivity issues comes into play and it shouldn't always be on the speaker to be at fault.  If an innocent question about someone's food tastes gets the receiver of the question up in arms then maybe it is on them and not the person asking the question.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Exactly. Not this generalization trash from the cancel culture heros who sit and look for things to hurt their feelings or better yet a race or culture that THEY ARENT LOL. 

It's so weird that the people who use terms like "cancel culture" 99.9% of the time come from non-marginalized class of society, who simply don't enjoy getting called out on their racism, misogyny, bigotry, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia or whatever other offensive crap they've gotten away with for centuries by being the majority. 

So now anyone who is critical of anyone for using language offensive to marginalized people is simply lumped into a mythical group of "cancel culture heroes". One doesn't have to be part of a marginalized group to have empathy for the people in that group. I'm not a woman, but I support women. I'm not gay, but I am against homophobia. I'm not not a person of color but I support people of color. You make the assertion that having those traits means I am "look(ing) for things to hurt (my) feelings", which is a ridiculous presumption. It's also a convenient way to stay just the way you are and never, ever have to own your own deficiencies. 

No one here is canceling anything. People are discussing words, and appropriateness. Empathy, sensitivity & compassion aren't weapons, they're aspects of showing humanity towards one another. 

Making this sweeping generalization unintentionally says way more about you than anyone here. 

 

[Boston]

Back in 1994 who would have thought that PCU would have replaced The Godfather as the greatest piece of cinematic genius of the 20th century. 

 

[Gottabesweet]

It's so weird that the people who use terms like "cancel culture" 99.9% of the time come from non-marginalized class of society, who simply don't enjoy getting called out on their racism, misogyny, bigotry, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia or whatever other offensive crap they've gotten away with for centuries by being the majority. 

So now anyone who is critical of anyone for using language offensive to marginalized people is simply lumped into a mythical group of "cancel culture heroes". One doesn't have to be part of a marginalized group to have empathy for the people in that group. I'm not a woman, but I support women. I'm not gay, but I am against homophobia. I'm not not a person of color but I support people of color. You make the assertion that having those traits means I am "look(ing) for things to hurt (my) feelings", which is a ridiculous presumption. It's also a convenient way to stay just the way you are and never, ever have to own your own deficiencies. 

No one here is canceling anything. People are discussing words, and appropriateness. Empathy, sensitivity & compassion aren't weapons, they're aspects of showing humanity towards one another. 

Making this sweeping generalization unintentionally says way more about you than anyone here. 

Lmao.  Nice try. So weird.  What will we be upset about tomorrow?  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

There is a big difference between assuming all Mexicans like spicy food and asking someone if they like spicy food.   This is where intent really is the most important thing in the usage of words or phrases.  I ask many different people whether or not they like spicy food and it has nothing to do with their ethnicity.  If I asked someone of Mexican decent if they like spicy foods it is not at all racist or demeaning.  It is a simple question to try and get to know someone.  I really have no idea why someone would take this question negatively.  

I think this is where the sensitivity issues comes into play and it shouldn't always be on the speaker to be at fault.  If an innocent question about someone's food tastes gets the receiver of the question up in arms then maybe it is on them and not the person asking the question.  

That's exactly what I was saying. 

There's a 3rd scenario as well though - like my own experience with the "R" word. Sometimes the person asking the question has an inherent cultural bias. They're being racist without being aware of their racism. So maybe they innocently ask what is then perceived as a racist question. 

That doesn't mean the person asking the question had ill intent, and it also doesn't mean the person they offended (take the Jamaican woman with the jerk chicken question) is wrong to have been offended by it. 

Like asking a black person if they like chicken & watermelon. Is that an innocent question?  "hey, I like chicken and watermelon" the offender might say. "What's the problem! Stop being so sensitive. What are you, some cancel culture hero?"

See how such things can be problematic?  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Lmao.  Nice try. So weird.  What will we be upset about tomorrow?  

I'm not upset in the slightest. Slightly disappointed, but I'll get over that pretty quick since I don't actually know you.

Have a nice day. 

 

[Gally]

It's so weird that the people who use terms like "cancel culture" 99.9% of the time come from non-marginalized class of society, who simply don't enjoy getting called out on their racism, misogyny, bigotry, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia or whatever other offensive crap they've gotten away with for centuries by being the majority. 

So now anyone who is critical of anyone for using language offensive to marginalized people is simply lumped into a mythical group of "cancel culture heroes". One doesn't have to be part of a marginalized group to have empathy for the people in that group. I'm not a woman, but I support women. I'm not gay, but I am against homophobia. I'm not not a person of color but I support people of color. You make the assertion that having those traits means I am "look(ing) for things to hurt (my) feelings", which is a ridiculous presumption. It's also a convenient way to stay just the way you are and never, ever have to own your own deficiencies. 

No one here is canceling anything. People are discussing words, and appropriateness. Empathy, sensitivity & compassion aren't weapons, they're aspects of showing humanity towards one another. 

Making this sweeping generalization unintentionally says way more about you than anyone here. 

It's not about getting called out on their racism etc.   It is about the context and intent of the initial statement not being used at all and then being called racist etc even though the context and intent of the original statement has nothing to do with the way the other person took it.  

This goes back to a few of my comments that everything is being talked about from one side - the receiver.  So it always becomes the problem with the giver of the statement.  Shouldn't the outrage be saved and spouted more on the actual intent and/or context of the statement rather than just the word itself?  

This goes both ways and isn't always all about siding with the marginalized group.  This practice is what I think is pushing people apart.  You end up labeling someone a racist because they asked someone of Mexican decent if they liked spicy food.  When all the guy was doing was wondering if he should put some Hot Guy Hot Sauce in the chili he was making.  Now the guy asking the innocent question is mad and says well if you think I am a racist over that then why should I watch what I say.  I say something innocently and get labeled so why not do something deserving (yes, I know this extreme but each instance pushes these guys a little further apart).

It's why my point is there is just as much onus on the receiver to see where the giver is coming from than the giver always needing to be careful as to not use a random word that the receiver construes out of context to be bad.  It is on both sides to get along and understand language and how it is used.

 

[drunkb]

This should only concern personal attacks and or doxxing. Can we just wipe this thread away?

 

[Gally]

That's exactly what I was saying. 

There's a 3rd scenario as well though - like my own experience with the "R" word. Sometimes the person asking the question has an inherent cultural bias. They're being racist without being aware of their racism. So maybe they innocently ask what is then perceived as a racist question. 

That doesn't mean the person asking the question had ill intent, and it also doesn't mean the person they offended (take the Jamaican woman with the jerk chicken question) is wrong to have been offended by it. 

Like asking a black person if they like chicken & watermelon. Is that an innocent question?  "hey, I like chicken and watermelon" the offender might say. "What's the problem! Stop being so sensitive. What are you, some cancel culture hero?"

See how such things can be problematic?  

This gets back to the poster that said that if people didn't take offense to what others said and just were happy with themselves it would solve a lot of these issues.  Same goes here.  If the Jamaican lady wasn't offended by the innocent question and realized it was just that and not a racist connotation then nobody is offended and nobody is unhappy.  Trying to find racism in things is a negative outlook and brings on negativity (Overtly racist things are terrible and shouldn't be tolerated).  Context is everything.  

 

[Summer Wheat]

Wow Kev, 117 people out of about 180 votes, almost Two-Thirds could not be a more 180 from the few who agreed and supported it. That's pretty telling and I understand why Joe might not have been able to continue on with the narrative, look at the poll results? 

I sincerely understand that folks who use the term are more than likely not using it in any kind of negative way when they write or post it. 

I do like the stock market analogy and it has gotten my creativity flowing for a revamped Exploit/Avoid thread mixed with a stock market approach. Having "Shares" of Berkshire, I guess the Shark Pool can buy shares in say Aaron Rodgers, Inc? That makes a lot of sense. We need a Dow Jones 100...NFL 100 Index works.  Buying a player's production or stats seems logical. If you take Kamara No 2 overall, you're pretty heavily invested in him, right? 

There's a lot of good counterpoints that I read and I'm never afraid to acknowledge other viewpoints. 

I am trying to trade my shares of Herbert right now as I have shares in Watson too! 

 

[Concept Coop]

It's so weird that the people who use terms like "cancel culture" 99.9% of the time come from non-marginalized class of society, who simply don't enjoy getting called out on their racism, misogyny, bigotry, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia or whatever other offensive crap they've gotten away with for centuries by being the majority.

I don't consider myself marginalized, but am black - and don't agree with cancel culture specifically and wokeness more generally. And I'm not sure what anyone could have been getting away with centuries before they were born.

So now anyone who is critical of anyone for using language offensive to marginalized people is simply lumped into a mythical group of "cancel culture heroes". One doesn't have to be part of a marginalized group to have empathy for the people in that group. I'm not a woman, but I support women. I'm not gay, but I am against homophobia. I'm not not a person of color but I support people of color. You make the assertion that having those traits means I am "look(ing) for things to hurt (my) feelings", which is a ridiculous presumption. It's also a convenient way to stay just the way you are and never, ever have to own your own deficiencies. 

I don't think being offended on behalf of someone else is a form of real support or empathy. I'm not questioning your individual motives, but I think wokeness is much more about vanity and projection than empathy and support. The most racist #### I've had directed at me was by woke folks who didn't like that my beliefs didn't fit their stereotypes or world view. I've been called a Tom a lot more frequently and recently than a N, and I'm not sure one of those slurs is any more or less offensive than the other.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This goes both ways and isn't always all about siding with the marginalized group.  This practice is what I think is pushing people apart.  You end up labeling someone a racist because they asked someone of Mexican decent if they liked spicy food.  When all the guy was doing was wondering if he should put some Hot Guy Hot Sauce in the chili he was making.  Now the guy asking the innocent question is mad and says well if you think I am a racist over that then why should I watch what I say.  I say something innocently and get labeled so why not do something deserving (yes, I know this extreme but each instance pushes these guys a little further apart).

It's why my point is there is just as much onus on the receiver to see where the giver is coming from than the giver always needing to be careful as to not use a random word that the receiver construes out of context to be bad.  It is on both sides to get along and understand language and how it is used.

I understand what you're saying, but there's always context. 

Just asking the question specifically of someone of a certain race if they like [anything typically associated with that race] is problematic because you've singled someone out for their race. 

And I agree - there are often times when someone innocently asks a question that someone else might take offense to. I addressed that with the comment about cultural blind spots.  And I agree - we shouldn't label people as racists because they asked what someone perceived as a racist question. We should take the opportunity to educate them as to why that question was inappropriate. 

That's why HR depts will often work with such employees rather than firing them for making, to them, was friendly conversation with the new Jamaican woman working at their job. 

That doesn't mean some cancel culture hero was out looking for something to be offended by though. That's what I referred to in my post. That is a cop out that minimizes people's legitimate offense at big things, and also is dismissive towards any grievance that is in conflict with their cultural norms. It is  refusal to accept cultural differences and a subtle insistence that the whole world bend to their stubbornness.  Like people who refuse to accept that the confederate flag is offensive to those who are descendants of slavery. One person's "heritage" is another's "oppression". 

I'm not saying we automatically take the side of the person offended. I'm saying we work together on these deep, complex issues instead of calling those who take offense whiny crybabies or those who offended racists. 

And also in context, we have to acknowledge that some people saying offensive things ARE offensive. They DO mean it offensively. Racism DOES exist. That's not to be overlooked in this conversation either. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This gets back to the poster that said that if people didn't take offense to what others said and just were happy with themselves it would solve a lot of these issues.  Same goes here.  If the Jamaican lady wasn't offended by the innocent question and realized it was just that and not a racist connotation then nobody is offended and nobody is unhappy.  Trying to find racism in things is a negative outlook and brings on negativity (Overtly racist things are terrible and shouldn't be tolerated).  Context is everything.  

Right - so what about the chicken & watermelon question?  Just a white person asking an innocent question of a black person or does that context also matter? 

 

[Gally]

I understand what you're saying, but there's always context. 

Just asking the question specifically of someone of a certain race if they like [anything typically associated with that race] is problematic because you've singled someone out for their race. 

And I agree - there are often times when someone innocently asks a question that someone else might take offense to. I addressed that with the comment about cultural blind spots.  And I agree - we shouldn't label people as racists because they asked what someone perceived as a racist question. We should take the opportunity to educate them as to why that question was inappropriate. 

That's why HR depts will often work with such employees rather than firing them for making, to them, was friendly conversation with the new Jamaican woman working at their job. 

That doesn't mean some cancel culture hero was out looking for something to be offended by though. That's what I referred to in my post. That is a cop out that minimizes people's legitimate offense at big things, and also is dismissive towards any grievance that is in conflict with their cultural norms. It is  refusal to accept cultural differences and a subtle insistence that the whole world bend to their stubbornness.  Like people who refuse to accept that the confederate flag is offensive to those who are descendants of slavery. One person's "heritage" is another's "oppression". 

I'm not saying we automatically take the side of the person offended. I'm saying we work together on these deep, complex issues instead of calling those who take offense whiny crybabies or those who offended racists. 

And also in context, we have to acknowledge that some people saying offensive things ARE offensive. They DO mean it offensively. Racism DOES exist. That's not to be overlooked in this conversation either. 

But why is innocently asking someone of a certain ethnicity a question regarding something about that race a problem?  Isn't that like asking an expert about something they are familiar with?  I just don't understand why that is deemed problematic or taken negatively.  This is assuming it is an innocent question and doesn't have obviously negative or demeaning tones to it.

I think this is what frustrates many people.  If I want to learn about a culture I have to ask about that culture and what better way then to go to the source.  Why is that taken as a negative and why am I now considered racist for asking?   Many people are looking for confrontations these days so they take these innocent questions as a reason to get angered.  I think this is becoming a bigger problem as the pendulum swings.  

 

[bcat01]

I think the original post was meant to be posted on April 1st.

 

[Gally]

Right - so what about the chicken & watermelon question?  Just a white person asking an innocent question of a black person or does that context also matter? 

Context matters.  Body queues matter.  Tone matters.  Relationships matter.  Situation matters.  All of this needs to be taken into account but just the question itself doesn't need to be demeaning or have a negative aspect.  Generalizations and stereotypes are there for a reason.  That doesn't necessarily make them bad.  Just like anything else there is a context to it.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don't consider myself marginalized, but am black - and don't agree with cancel culture specifically and wokeness more generally. And I'm not sure what anyone could have been getting away with centuries before they were born.

That's a bit literal. I meant it as "what the culture has gotten away with". 

I don't think being offended on behalf of someone else is a form of real support or empathy. I'm not questioning your individual motives, but I think wokeness is much more about vanity and projection than empathy and support. The most racist #### I've had directed at me was by woke folks who didn't like that my beliefs didn't fit their stereotypes or world view. I've been called a Tom a lot more frequently and recently than a N, and I'm not sure one of those slurs is any more or less offensive than the other.

I'm not offended on anyone else's behalf. I attempt to recognize what might be offensive to others based on what others from more traditionally marginalized groups have told me is offensive to them. I am fortunate to live in a melting pot area with a very diverse group of friends/fam. 

I agree about "woke" culture - I think Shaun King falls into that category (bringing this full circle back to the issue of "owner" and his article about auction drafts). A lot of it is about vanity.  

But some of it is about a desire for cultural change. 

As for the last part, one of my friends grew up in the south, and he's a hunter and fisherman. He describes himself as a "redneck" and he happens to also be black. He relates to southern folks more than he relates to his CA fam, and he has also been subjected to those insults. 

I don't think one is worse or better than the other. Generalizations fail.  Just like making a generalization about people who seek to be better in the world as "SJW's" or assuming they're simply offended by something because someone, somewhere might be offended by something. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Context matters.  Body queues matter.  Tone matters.  Relationships matter.  Situation matters.  All of this needs to be taken into account but just the question itself doesn't need to be demeaning or have a negative aspect.  Generalizations and stereotypes are there for a reason.  That doesn't necessarily make them bad.  Just like anything else there is a context to it.  

In that example the context is deeply rooted in racism, so.....that seems problematic. 

 

[cloppbeast]

Work just had a call where a Spanish person said it was racist to ask if they like spicy foods? And then a Jamaican lady said the same if you ask her if she can make jerk wings.  This thread reminds me about that.  Not everything has to be about race etc, especially when it’s coming with no Ill intent.  An Italian doesn’t get offended when you ask if they know how to make sauce.  Again the world is soft.  Even more so in 2020.  To each their own.  Doesn’t bother me either way.  

There is a Seinfeld clip for every awkward situation.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But why is innocently asking someone of a certain ethnicity a question regarding something about that race a problem?  Isn't that like asking an expert about something they are familiar with?  I just don't understand why that is deemed problematic or taken negatively.  This is assuming it is an innocent question and doesn't have obviously negative or demeaning tones to it.

I think this is what frustrates many people.  If I want to learn about a culture I have to ask about that culture and what better way then to go to the source.  Why is that taken as a negative and why am I now considered racist for asking?   Many people are looking for confrontations these days so they take these innocent questions as a reason to get angered.  I think this is becoming a bigger problem as the pendulum swings.  

This is a deeper question than I really have time to answer since I need to get orders out, but as a "$.02" response, to the first part:  it could be an innocent question, or it could be a loaded question. You're correct that context matters. Your level of familiarity with that person, or your workplace relationship, and also your own cultural background all provide context. But the short answer here is because that hypothetical Jamaican woman is not "the white guy whisperer". 

My ex g/f had her nephew call me to have this exact discussion. A young black professional working in a predominantly white office. His co-workers constantly pepper him with questions related to his being black - politics, food, race relations, etc. He was getting frustrated. He wanted advice on how to best handle it because it was getting to him. I suggested that he find some resources to redirect the question - not confrontation and not presuming they're racists, to your point. But more, "that's an interesting question - here's someone who's opinion on the subject I value."

That both accepts the question as valid, and reinforces that he is not responsible for someone else's education about the black experience. 

So no - you're not necessarily racist for asking. But the person you're asking might not feel it is their responsibility to be your mentor for all things about their race.  He's there to be an analyst, and wants to do his job and be treated as any other employee, doing workplace stuff. 

 

[drunkb]

Context matters.  Body queues matter.  Tone matters.  Relationships matter.  Situation matters.  All of this needs to be taken into account but just the question itself doesn't need to be demeaning or have a negative aspect.  Generalizations and stereotypes are there for a reason.  That doesn't necessarily make them bad.  Just like anything else there is a context to it.  

Just don't be an #####. WTF!!!

 

[cloppbeast]

But they’re right. It is racist to assume all Mexicans like spicy food.

and at the same time when I’m working my booth I *frequently* have customers say things like “man; I’m Mexican! Gimme the hottest you got!” when I ask them how hot they like their hot sauce. 

It’s a subtle difference. Someone from that culture might make a sweeping generalization about their own culture. That’s not the same as you making a sweeping generalization about their culture. 

Heck, there might even be a cultural pride for a person of Latin descent in being able to handle extremely spicy food. That still doesn’t make it ok for someone outside of their culture to assert that’s the case. 

many racial stereotypes have hints of truth to them, which is why we have this double edged sword of “who’s allowed” to use those terms or make those generalizations. Intent and context matter. 

my response to those customers is usually, “well I didn’t want to racially profile you”, and we share a laugh about it. And it’s also true.

And some Italians might get mad if you ask them if they know how to make sauce. And some might not.

None of this means the world is soft. It means we should collectively work on our approach to cultural differences and avoid making assumptions about people based on race or culture. 

If someone assuming you like spicy food is the worst think that happens to you today, you had a pretty good day.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If someone assuming you like spicy food is the worst think that happens to you today, you had a pretty good day.

I agree, but that’s completely besides the point. 

 

[drunkb]

They blocked AAAA-hole

 

[Summer Wheat]

This is a deeper question than I really have time to answer since I need to get orders out, but as a "$.02" response, to the first part:  it could be an innocent question, or it could be a loaded question. You're correct that context matters. Your level of familiarity with that person, or your workplace relationship, and also your own cultural background all provide context. But the short answer here is because that hypothetical Jamaican woman is not "the white guy whisperer". 

My ex g/f had her nephew call me to have this exact discussion. A young black professional working in a predominantly white office. His co-workers constantly pepper him with questions related to his being black - politics, food, race relations, etc. He was getting frustrated. He wanted advice on how to best handle it because it was getting to him. I suggested that he find some resources to redirect the question - not confrontation and not presuming they're racists, to your point. But more, "that's an interesting question - here's someone who's opinion on the subject I value."

That both accepts the question as valid, and reinforces that he is not responsible for someone else's education about the black experience. 

So no - you're not racist for asking. But the person you're asking might not feel it is their responsibility to be your mentor for all things about their race.  He's there to be an analyst, and wants to do his job and be treated as any other employee, doing workplace stuff. 

Sometimes people are sincere and want to be educated.  My mom is LatinX anmd is a great cook/chef.   We have been around people including blacks that have asked her about how to make different things, asked her what her young life was like. They asked her because they liked her and wanted to be educated.   Instead of always looking for the negative it might be because people care and want to learn more.

At UPS we had a young black man who was a temp worker one summer.  At first he hardly spoke, After getting to know him a little he told me this was the first time if his life he had ever actually "talked" to anyone other than another black person.

When he started talking more he asked me about what kind of food my mom made growing up, what did I like to eat and drink. I then asked him the same.  It was funny as we both started laughing at some of the things we liked that were so different.    Sometimes it it just trying to learn about people different from yourself.

 

[Concept Coop]

I think this is what frustrates many people.  If I want to learn about a culture I have to ask about that culture and what better way then to go to the source.  Why is that taken as a negative and why am I now considered racist for asking?   Many people are looking for confrontations these days so they take these innocent questions as a reason to get angered.  I think this is becoming a bigger problem as the pendulum swings.  

Exactly. The cost of any misstep is too high to foster connection. We're beat over the head with the message that diversity is a pure good and a panacea - and I think it is a net positive - but not like this. I can't be friends with someone if I'm too scared to ask them about their food preferences or comment on their hair or ask about their background, etc.

I often find myself on the other side of this - talking to be people terrified to say "black" or "African American" , for example, out of fear of how I'll react if they use the wrong one. It sucks on my end too.

 

[Mark Football]

This gets back to the poster that said that if people didn't take offense to what others said and just were happy with themselves it would solve a lot of these issues.  Same goes here.  If the Jamaican lady wasn't offended by the innocent question and realized it was just that and not a racist connotation then nobody is offended and nobody is unhappy.  Trying to find racism in things is a negative outlook and brings on negativity (Overtly racist things are terrible and shouldn't be tolerated).  Context is everything.  

The thing of it is Gally, is that it makes people feel good about themselves if they are doing something "good". In the meantime though the people who are really suffering are the people who are in a perpetual state of offense. Their lives are not peaceful. You will never be able to convince someone like HSG that the solution does not lie in people being better, because then he won't be able to feel good about himself and be good with himself because he did his part to change the world. 

 

[drunkb]

Sometimes people are sincere and want to be educated.  My mom is LatinX anmd is a great cook/chef.   We have been around people including blacks that have asked her about how to make different things, asked her what her young life was like. They asked her because they liked her and wanted to be educated.   Instead of always looking for the negative it might be because people care and want to learn more.

At UPS we had a young black man who was a temp worker one summer.  At first he hardly spoke, After getting to know him a little he told me this was the first time if his life he had ever actually "talked" to anyone other than another black person.

When he started talking more he asked me about what kind of food my mom made growing up, what did I like to eat and drink. I then asked him the same.  It was funny as we both started laughing at some of the things we liked that were so different.    Sometimes it it just trying to learn about people different from yourself.

Funny that you say that. I am from the inner city of Cleveland and my childhood was as diverse as anyone here. That didn't put me at a disadvantage. If anything, it put me AT an advantage so I understood everyone better. I lived with 3 black students in college that decided to move out of the dorms with my best friend until we all graduated. We were the worst of the worst selling but we always made sure everyone was ok. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The thing of it is Gally, is that it makes people feel good about themselves if they are doing something "good". In the meantime though the people who are really suffering are the people who are in a perpetual state of offense. Their lives are not peaceful. You will never be able to convince someone like HSG that the solution does not lie in people being better, because then he won't be able to feel good about himself and be good with himself because he did his part to change the world. 

I am not in a perpetual state of offense. Not remotely.   

 

[drunkb]

I am a grown adult hurt by words. Come at me.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Exactly. The cost of any misstep is too high to foster connection. We're beat over the head with the message that diversity is a pure good and a panacea - and I think it is a net positive - but not like this. I can't be friends with someone if I'm too scared to ask them about their food preferences or comment on their hair or ask about their background, etc.

I don’t disagree with any of this, but the context there is *friendship*, not a workplace relationship with someone you hardly know. 

that’s a massive difference. 

I engage in race and culture discussions with my friends alllllll the time. And believe it or not there’s even some “light racism” in our friendly banter like “yeah sure you like mayonnaise” or whatever. 

but that’s because we know and trust each other; and understand the context of our interaction. 

It’s much different if a white dude asks the new black guy at work if “he likes fried chicken & watermelon”. 

agree? 

I often find myself on the other side of this - talking to be people terrified to say "black" or "African American" , for example, out of fear of how I'll react if they use the wrong one. It sucks on my end too.

Of course - and as you were describing earlier, that’s “woke-ism” gone too far.

Its a tough situation. In my friend’s nephew’s case, his co-workers got way too familiar and way too focused on his race, making him uncomfortable. 

but I can see the flip side where people walk on eggshells as well. Some of that is probably in the delivery. Some of it is simply not appropriate workplace dialogue. 

I ain’t the HR manager, I’m just saying what I’ve seen and heard from others. There’s no easy answer. I appreciate that you’re there for your friends on such things, much as I’m here for my friends on my own marginalized status (despite not being a practicing member of that particular status).  It’s good to be open about it. 

it’s not good when others take a bad approach at it or take advantage of it. 

 

[Mark Football]

I am not in a perpetual state of offense. Not remotely.   

I didn't say that you were. But the mom who is offended for her child may be. And that should be our concern. She doesn't need to be offended and feel that pain. What people say and do doesn't need to affect her. That's what I would want her to know. I think her knowing the truth about that is more important than you changing your behavior. I mean more important for her.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Funny that you say that. I am from the inner city of Cleveland and my childhood was as diverse as anyone here. That didn't put me at a disadvantage. If anything, it put me AT an advantage so I understood everyone better. I lived with 3 black students in college that decided to move out of the dorms with my best friend until we all graduated. We were the worst of the worst selling but we always made sure everyone was ok. 

I agree that people who grow up with diversity are far more likely to adapt to this changing world.  Having a diverse environment provides subtle understanding of the cultures around you. 

Those who grow up in a more insulated bubble are more likely to feel persecuted for having beliefs and mannerisms or using words that cause offense to groups outside that which they were brought up in. 

So what’s the answer? Contrary to @Mark Football’s assertion, I actually agree with those who are against the “woke scolds” shaming anyone at the slightest perception of offense. 

But at the same time, there are universally accepted “offensive” behaviors that as a society we’d probably be better off moving past. 

How do we provide the understanding & experience of diversity to those who grew up in relative isolation? 

Challenging. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I didn't say that you were. But the mom who is offended for her child may be. And that should be our concern. She doesn't need to be offended and feel that pain. What people say and do doesn't need to affect her. That's what I would want her to know. I think her knowing the truth about that is more important than you changing your behavior. I mean more important for for her.

That’s really hard for me to embrace as a philosophy. 

“Hey; lady - you should apologize to that guy who said the R-word, because you got offended by it” is just weird and foreign to me.

isn’t it better if people just don’t call each other r——ds?

 

[Mark Football]

That’s really hard for me to embrace as a philosophy. 

“Hey; lady - you should apologize to that guy who said the R-word, because you got offended by it” is just weird and foreign to me.

isn’t it better if people just don’t call each other r——ds?

Where in that did you get that I said she should apologize? Your responses are getting stranger and stranger. I said she doesn't have to be offended. And she doesn't.

 

[IheartGuinness]

Wow, this thread is long and interesting. I've been slaving away all afternoon to get through it.

Yeah, me too. It's like I've been chained to my screen eagerly awaiting the next post.